1951-06-01

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table copies, in English and in French, of the report of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences.
The report was presented by the chairman of the royal commission at twelve o'clock noon today, and placed before the governor in council immediately before the meeting of the house this afternoon. The government has, therefore, not yet had any opportunity to give consideration to the report, and, in fact, none of the members of the government has yet read it.
My colleagues and I have, however, confidence in the members of the commission, and we have no doubt whatever that the report will constitute a valuable guide to our future national development in the fields which it covers, and that the recommendations of the commission will be of the greatest assistance to the government in determining appropriate policies for such federal action as may be desirable in these fields.
In accordance with previous indications I have given to the house, I wished to lose no time in having the report made available to members of parliament and to the public, both because of the widespread interest in its subject matter and because the report itself will obviously call for careful study and discussion, not only by members of the government and of parliament but by the public at large.
In tabling the report I should like, on behalf of the government, to express deep appreciation of the untiring and devoted service given to this task by the chairman and members of the royal commission since it was established two years ago. I am sure that the work of the commission and their report will be a significant milestone in the development of our national heritage.


Mr. Knowles:: After the government has had an opportunity of reading the report, will the Prime Minister indicate to the house, within a reasonable period of time, whether
any legislation based upon it will be introduced at this session, or this year?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I would not like to predict what would be the attitude of the government concerning recommendations that the government has not yet had an opportunity of seeing. All I can say is that the government set up this royal commission because it felt the commission would be helpful in pointing the way to whatever policies it might be appropriate for the federal government to adopt in the wide fields covered by the reference; that is still the attitude of the government.



CANADIAN GRAIN MISSION


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I should like to lay on the table copies of the printed report of the Canadian grain mission. Hon. members may recall that in the autumn of 1950, the members of the mission visited United Kingdom and other European countries, and called upon the grain trade, millers and government authorities, with a view to facilitating trade in Canadian wheat grain and flour in that area. I believe hon. members who are interested in the marketing of Canadian wheat will find the contents of this report of considerable interest.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Speaker:: All hon. members would, I am sure, wish me to draw attention to the presence in the gallery of the distinguished secretary general of the United Nations, Mr. Trygve Lie. We all welcome the presence of one who for more than five years has dedicated himself steadfastly to the promotion of the high purposes and principles set forth in the charter of the United Nations.
Mr. Lie was elected to be the first secretary general of the United Nations in February, 1946, and recently his term of office was extended for a further three years beginning February 1, 1951. Since assuming this high office, he has won general admiration and respeot for his devotion to the work of the United Nations in all its phases.
I am not sure that it is wholly proper to refer to the national origin of such a noted

Inquiries of the Ministry internationalist, but I think that I should remark that Mr. Lie had a very distinguished career in the public life of Norway as a lawyer, statesman and diplomat before devoting his whole time to the service of the United Nations. Apart from holding many important portfolios in the Norwegian government-he was, for instance, foreign minister of the government in exile during the war-he was head of the Norwegian delegation at the San Francisco conference which resulted in the establishment of the United Nations. At this conference he served as chairman of the commission which drafted the provisions of the charter relating to the security council.
All hon. members, I am sure, would wish me to extend to Mr. Lie on their behalf the warmest possible welcome to the House of Commons of Canada.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 354, to incorporate First Canadian Reinsurance Company.-Mr. Henderson.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to provide for the appointment and superannuation of certain officers and employees necessary for carding out the provisions of the act, and to provide further that no projects involving an expenditure in excess of ten thousand dollars shall be undertaken without the consent of the governor in council.


Mr. Thatcher:: Explain.


James Garfield Gardiner: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
The explanation is, I think, all in the resolution as worded. This organization was set up in 1935 as a temporary organization to do certain things over a period of five years. It has been extended in its time to the point where it is now recognized as a permanent organization, and the staffs are to be brought under the civil service commission.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. Sinnoll (Springfield):: I should
like to address a question to the Minister of Resources and Development of which I have given him notice. Is the minister in a position to give final details with regard to the route of the trans-Canada highway from Winnipeg east to the Ontario border?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The minister of public works for Manitoba has recommended, and we have concurred in, a route which runs from the Ontario-Manitoba boundary via existing highway No. 1 to a point near West Hawk lake, thence southwesterly past Falcon lake to a point north of Glen, thence westerly to a point east of Ste. Anne, thence northwesterly to the boundary of St. Boniface.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he as yet received formal notification from the United Kingdom that the parliament there has passed the amendment to the British North America Act which will enable the new old age pensions legislation to be brought in? If so, can the Prime Minister tell us when he will be making a statement to the house, as promised yesterday?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, just before coming
into the house I again communicated with both the Department of External Affairs and Government house in order to ascertain if any official word had yet come from London. I was informed that none had yet come, although this morning there was a dispatch sent to our high commissioner asking him to let us know just as soon as the matter had been finally dealt with. There has not yet been any answer to that message.



MANPOWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of

Labour. On May 21, as reported at page 3220 of Hansard, I asked the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour if the national advisory council on manpower intended using the national census for some of its purposes. The parliamentary assistant at that time stated that he would take the question as notice. Is the minister prepared to answer the question today?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I have noted the hon. member's question, and I think I can answer it immediately. The national advisory council on manpower will not use the data collected under the census administration for any other purposes than those for which similar information has been used in the past. In other words, it will not be used as an alternative method of registration.


Gordon Francis Higgins: May I just say to the minister that in the advertisements of the dominion bureau of statistics, there is given an undertaking that no statistics will be revealed to any department under any circumstances.


An hon. Member:: Statistics?


Gordon Francis Higgins: None of the details.



BUTTER AND MARGARINE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. What is the cost of producing a pound of margarine for the market as compared with the cost of producing a pound of butter?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. McLure:: This is a question of which
I would have given the minister notice, but I received it only a few minutes ago.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, if that question is to be discussed, I think it had better oe on my estimates.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1.	Departmental administration, $336,942.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Last evening just before
;he house adjourned I rose to make a few -emarks, and the chairman very kindly :alled it eleven o'clock. A few moments ago [ asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture, and he said that he would mswer it when we came to deal with his istimates. I shall now present the question
Supply-Agriculture
again, since it is based on an urgent request from a couple of farmers who came to my office today. I repeat the question, so that the minister when he is answering other questions will answer this one. What is the cost-of producing a pound of margarine for the market as compared with the cost of producing a pound of butter for the market?
Since we have started to deal with these estimates I notice that a great many western members have taken up the cause of the farmers of the west. In all discussions on farming and administration of the Department of Agriculture the western members stick together as though they had a common cause in the interest of the western farmers. It is difficult to tell whether they are Liberals, Conservatives, C.C.F. or Social Credit. If there is a farmer's problem before the house they are all inclined to stick together, and thby get their demands granted by the government by so doing. We had an example of that not so long ago when all the members from the west took up the cudgels for the farmers and they were granted a subsidy of some $65 million.
In the course of their remarks some of the western members were inclined to think that the eastern members are not so much interested as they should be in the cause of the western farmers. But I say that the eastern members have always been and still are interested in the western farmers, and a large majority of them are doing more for the western farmers than the western members are doing for the eastern farmers and their problems.
I do not take any objection to the members from the west, of all political parties, grouping together and making one demand. In fact I congratulate them on their having a co-operative spirit. We in the east sometimes take our politics a little too seriously, with the result that the agricultural problems of the east are not getting the attention from the department or from the government that the western farmers get.
The one important problem at the present time-the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton brought it to the attention of the minister- is that of marketing our surplus potatoes. For the first time in this house or anywhere else the amount that was allocated to assist the potato grower to market his surplus product has been mentioned. As the minister stated yesterday, that amount is some $300,000. It has been allocated to New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. This will not be more than $150,000-probably it will not be over $100,000-for Prince Edward Island. It is only a small item when

Supply-Agriculture
you compare it with the $65 million that the wheat growers received. When you compare these two amounts you see the unfair attitude taken by the department and by the government toward the eastern farmers. We have had discussions of the price' that was to be paid to take care of the surplus potatoes in our province. I understood it was to have been 44 cents a bushel. This is at least 16 cents below the cost of production. However, as I said a moment ago, no evidence has been given of an order in council having been passed to pay the farmers for their surplus potatoes.
In the discussion that took place yesterday on this matter I find quite a difference between the views of the minister and those of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton. They seem to disagree as to how this price should be paid and how much each government is to pay. There is a little difference in our province, because at the time that this question was uppermost in the minds of the farmers a provincial election was in progress and the farmers, rightly or wrongly, were led to believe that they would get 22 cents from the starch factory, 22 cents from the local government and 22 cents from the federal government, which would make 66 cents. I do not say that the Minister of Agriculture put out that proposition, but it was current during the election. It was good campaign material, judging from the results of the election that took place on April 26.
However, there is some misunderstanding with regard to the payment of 22 cents from the starch factory. If they are unable to take all the product that is being offered, will the government, either the federal government or the local -government, take the amount that the starch factories are not able to take? In other words, instead of dumping two or three million bushels of potatoes, will the government pay the same price of 44 cents in our province, and a little higher price by the barrel in New Brunswick? That is a matter which the farmers are considering at this time when they are planting their potatoes. It would be of great assistance to most of them to know just how they are to be treated with regard to the dumping of potatoes, which will have to be done in many instances.
It seems strange that a good food such as eastern potatoes should be dumped when other parts of the world are experiencing famine. We know that the government endeavoured to assist the farmers of western Canada by selling wheat to some of these distressed areas-wheat that was not fit for dour purposes. I think they should have -,-onsidered at the same time selling millions
[Mr. McLure.l
of bushels of extra choice potatoes, instead of having them dumped, when food is so scarce.
I shall not deal with any other matters, with the exception of the one pertaining to potatoes. However I would ask the minister when- he replies, to answer these questions:
1.	Was there or is there a proposal to pay the -potato growers of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island $300,000? If so, when was this proposal passed, and how much was allocated to the Prince Edward Island growers?
2.	Will the farmers be paid- 44 cents a bushel for all potatoes dumped?
3.	Will farmers who were forced to sell at very low prices receive a sum of money which will place them in the same position as those receiving 44 cents a bushel?
4.	Is there to be a plan for the marketing of potatoes in 1951, and, if so, will the minister outline that plan?


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, yesterday afternoon and evening several matters pertaining to agriculture were discussed. I am sure hon. members from the maritime provinces will forgive me if I do not refer to the potato problem, because I do not know very much about potatoes-other than possibly the difference between mashed and French-fried.
One other subject of interest to wheat farmers was the international wheat agreement. The discussion was introduced, I believe, by the hon. member for Lake Centre, when he suggested- that the government should ask for a- renegotiation of the contract. This sounded all right. I do not know whether it would be beneficial or not. I think all will agree that all members of the government are interested in seeing that we get as much as possible for our wheat.
We come now to the subject which has been discussed at some considerable length: I refer to the South Saskatchewan dam Along with other hon. -members, if at al possible I am i-n favour of getting started or the dam. The suggestion was made that the work might be held up until the time o: another election. I suppose that was throw! into the discussion more or less as a joke. Mr. Thatcher: What do you mean, a joke' Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):	Because
there would be no good reason for holding i up until the time of another election. I would take ten years to build the dam and if that would elect the present government the hon. member will be sitting where he i for a considerable length of time-at leas until after another two elections.

The suggestion was made that we are united on the subject and that we would not play politics with it. With this I agree. I have no criticism of the government I support in respect of its playing politics. The only quarrel I have is that at times they are not political enough, and I have been urging some of the ministers to realize that on occasions they should be a little more political.
The suggestion was made that the South Saskatchewan dam was required because we need more electricity in that province. In the constituency I have the honour to represent is found the chief supply of electricity for the province. This supply is found in the Estevan-Bienfait area; it is made possible by cheap coal. I am not going to discuss the question whether a supply of water would give us cheaper electricity than coal. I do know, however, that at Bienfait, south and east of Estevan, the coal companies supply the power commission with coal to make their electricity at a price of less than a dollar a ton. I am informed that on that basis we can manufacture electricity from coal at just about the same price as it can be produced from natural gas. I am not sure of the cost of electricity at Estevan, but I understand it is produced at the plant for less than one cent a kilowatt.
In the Estevan area we have been interested in getting a smaller dam on Long creek. I understand this is being held up because of a report which is expected from the international joint commission. I shall not discuss the matter further. I have discussed it with the minister on many occasions, and I shall speak to him privately again. However, if the South Saskatchewan development, which might be considered more important, does not go ahead, I would be hopeful that money would be made available for the dam at Estevan on Long creek.


The Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Hodgson:: I cannot let it carry just yet. If one may judge from what has been said by hon. members who spoke yesterday and today, I believe it can be said that the farmers, and people generally in the east, are agreeable to the development of the dam on the South Saskatchewan river. If the result will be the production of more wheat and flour, if it will make the western provinces more prosperous, then I am sure all the people in Canada will be in favour of it. There is no doubt in my mind that through the years it will pay for itself.
Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture said that as far back as 1947 he was sold on the idea. The minister has had four long years 80709-2301
Supply-Agriculture
to sell the idea to the rest of the cabinet, but, according to what he said yesterday, up to now that has not been done. We know that the hon. gentleman is one minister who is thoroughly familiar with his department, and we know also that he is a clever politician. I do not like to see projects of this kind carried over from year to year. If it was a good thing for Canada in 1947, it should be good in 1951; it should not be left until 1953 or 1954, just before an election, before work is commenced. Why put off until tomorrow what you can do today, if it is necessary and if it will make our country more prosperous?
I think the irrigation scheme is a proper one; it has worked out successfully in other parts of southern Alberta, and at various other places in Canada. There is no doubt it will be successful in the South Saskatchewan area. My late colleague, Mr. John R. MacNicol, who sat in the house for a number of years, talked about this project for many sessions. It was not a matter of selling the idea to the government, because the government must have known about it for a long time. The late Mr. MacNicol was an engineer by profession. He knew the area, and had travelled by river from one end of it to the other. He was convinced that the dam could be built, and that when built it would stay there.
Some Liberal members referred to the production of power, but I am not in favour of the dominion government developing power. It is quite all right to build a dam for irrigation purposes, but the production of power should be left to the provincial government or to a corporation similar to the Ontario hydro. After all, the C.C.F. government have been bragging about the situation in Saskatchewan, and I think they are quite capable of taking care of the power situation.
There is one question I should like to ask the minister which he can answer later. A few weeks ago the price of butter jumped ten cents a pound. I should like to know why that sharp increase occurred, and also why the price of margarine immediately jumped ten or twelve cents a pound. These things should be controlled. I am not going into the question of price control, because the chairman would stop me, but I think this is information we should have from the minister.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of saying anything about western wheat, because that is about all we have heard for the last eleven years I have been here. I have no objection to the western wheat farmer getting all he thinks he should get or should have got out of his wheat, but I do not think the treasury should be bled to meet the

Supply-Agriculture
losses that have been sustained. If the marketing was not done properly, then we should go back to where the fault lies rather than try to take it out of the treasury. That is all I have to say about that.
The dairy industry of Canada is in about the worst condition it has been in for a long time, for several reasons. One reason is the entry of cheap oils to be used in the manufacture of a spread as a substitute for butter. The dairy industry cannot compete against them. If the government or the Minister of Agriculture is not any more interested in the dairy industry than to let that sort of thing happen, then we cannot expect very much.


Mr. Gibson:: The minister is just one man.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You cannot compete against cheap oils. If people want to buy margarine, that is all very well, but the dairy industry cannot compete against such a spread. I suggest to the government that milk production should be pooled. I do not know whether any thought has been given to this in past years, but it should be considered. There is no reason why a farmer producing milk on one side of the road should receive a different price from that received by the farmer on the other side of the road simply because he sells to a creamery, a cheese factory, a concentrated milk plant or what have you.
Milk production should be pooled and the products sold at the same price according to grade. If it was handled in that way it could then be put into the production of whatever commodity was most needed. That is the only way you will ever have sufficient butter to supply the demand. You will not get it even at 58 or 60 cents a pound, because too many farmers are allowing calves to suck cows because they cannot see their way clear to working ten or fifteen hours a day and paying income tax at the same rate as other people who work only an eight hour day. A farmer must work ten or fifteen hours a day to get up into the taxable income bracket, while other people can make the same money working an eight hour day. If a farmer gets into the income tax paying bracket it is because he works long hours. There should be some adjustment.
I should like the minister to tell us why the price of hogs went down about four or five cents a pound a few weeks ago and yet the retail price of pork did not drop at all. Then the price rose again after a short period. The only one who suffered was the farmer.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister where the Nova Scotia potato grower stands with regard to the subsidy on potatoes. There are quite a

few potato growers in Nova Scotia. It is true that they do not always have to take as low a price as the potato growers in Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick, but sometimes they have to take less than the 44 or 45 cents per bushel which was mentioned last evening and this afternoon.
I support the hon. member for Queens and the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, who have asked for a support price for potatoes in the maritime provinces. This is a large item of production in those three provinces, especially in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. I do not see why a farmer who has put in long hours growing potatoes should have to sell them at 25 cents or 30 cents per bushel with no floor under his price, while the western farmer gets a good price for his wheat and has the benefit of a floor under his price. The same goes for butter. The potato grower should receive the same consideration. I want the minister to tell us why Nova Scotia was not brought under this agreement. It may be the fault of the provincial government. 1 understand they have a good marketing board in that province. I should like to see a support price for potatoes, to govern not only the old crop but to be carried forward in connection with the new crop.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, so that there may be no misunderstanding in the minds of the minister and hon. members I should like to put in a word for the newest province. There may be some who wonder whether we produce anything down there except fish. But we do grow some potatoes and other vegetables, and I submit that our dairy industry also should receive some consideration. We have a peculiar situation in that the United States bases fly in their milk from Prince Edward Island and thus by-pass the richest part of the newest province. It seems to me that the western part of the province could supply the needs of these bases.
When the minister replies, as I believe he will, I should like him to give us his views on price support. I believe he is entirely in favour of support and floor prices for agricultural products. I am satisfied that he has always felt that that is a good thing. I should like to know whether there is anything bad about floor prices. Is there any reason why floor prices cannot be applied to all commodities produced in Canada? Is there any disadvantage in putting floor prices under the different commodities produced all across Canada?


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Charlton:: I think the minister is willing to answer these questions before the item carries.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is scarcely the time for cross-questioning. I think the best time for that is when we get to the items concerned.
I am quite prepared to give a general reply to what has been discussed, but I doubt very much if at this stage I should discuss every individual item. They are all covered under specific items. When we come to dairying we can discuss dairying much better than we can discuss it now.
On the general question which has just been referred to, I would say to the hon, member that I am going to Newfoundland on Sunday.


Gordon Francis Higgins: You are very welcome.


James Garfield Gardiner: I intend to spend three or four days there next week and make myself better acquainted with their situation in relation to agricultural production. I hope that following that visit I shall be in a better position to discuss matters of that kind. I would point out, however, that the only criticism I heard from Newfoundland with regard to potatoes came at the time of our conference last year, when it was being suggested that we should subsidize the marketing of potatoes in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.


An hon. Member:: What about Nova Scotia?


James Garfield Gardiner: Nova Scotia of course had put forward their suggestions too. However,
I was told that the practice in Newfoundland had been to encourage their people to produce potatoes for consumption by those who live in Newfoundland, and that the practice of the government in the past had been to encourage a rather higher price for potatoes. They had developed a condition under which the farmers were able to prodhce their potatoes and obtain for them, in the local markets, prices which paid them fairly well. They took some objection to our subsidizing the marketing of potatoes to make it possible for someone to come in and undersell them. I think there is some reason in that. It was definitely stated at the time that they did not follow along with some others who were advocating another policy.
On the general question of the marketing of potatoes, we have no objection whatsoever to doing the same thing in one province as in another. It is for that reason that we have insisted on the producers in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick organizing under some system that could be applied in other provinces if other provinces wished to apply it. The system now being followed there in connection with the marketing of surplus potatoes for this past year is that of making
Supply-Agriculture
use of the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act under which they set up boards which take delivery of the potatoes and pay to the producer a certain initial payment.
The suggestion was made a few moments ago that 22 cents a bushel is paid by the people who process the potatoes into starch, and I think that is about the correct figure. It was also suggested that someone else was going to pay some other amount. Everything that has to do with that is written into the agreement, and, so far as I can recall, the only order in council-I do not have it here at the moment, but it will be here later when we come to that matter-is the one giving me authority to sign the agreement. The agreement is with the marketing boards in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. If Nova Scotia desires a similar agreement, it will be necessary first for the producers in Nova Scotia to form a similar organization and come here with the idea of obtaining similar support.
Dairy products were referred to, and I notice that the member who asked some of the questions is not here at the moment; but there was a general question having to do with the price of butter at different times.
I might tell him, and others who are interested, something that apparently is not generally understood. There never was a time last year when we were short of butter in Canada. As a matter of fact we had 10 million pounds of butter still in storage on the first of April, which is a higher amount than we had in seven out of the last eleven years. The first of April is the beginning of the month when our production again reaches the amount of our consumption. There was no shortage of butter in Canada at any time last year. I think if we start from there we can reason much more-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Why did you import some?


James Garfield Gardiner: We did not import any. As a matter of fact we tried to stop some people from importing it, but they did import it.


John Alpheus Charlton: The government allowed the importation of the butter.


James Garfield Gardiner: Eventually, after it was
purchased, and purchased in spite of our views on the matter, we permitted that butter to come in, with the suggestion that it was to be put absolutely at our disposal when it came in; but that was not done. All that can be fully explained when we come to discuss dairy products.


John Alpheus Charlton: I should like to ask the minister a question.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend asked me to make a speech on this matter, at the

Supply-Agriculture
outset, and if he will permit me to make it, we -can have a discussion when we come to dairy products.


John Alpheus Charlton: The question is relevant.
The minister has referred to butter, and I think this would be the right time to ask the question.


James Garfield Gardiner: Ask it.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member will realize that on the first item we have a general discussion. The Minister of Agriculture is now giving a general reply to the general discussion which has taken place. However, when it comes to answering questions, I think the practice has been to wait until the specific item is before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, in any debate in this house a member may rise and ask a speaker if a question can be asked. Why is there any objection? The minister is willing to answer.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra will understand that whenever an hon. member wants to ask a question of the member who has the floor, that member must give his consent.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Usually the member who has the floor acknowledges that he consents to reply to the question by taking his seat. The Minister of Agriculture took his seat, as did the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth, when I stood up. Therefore it was apparent that he was not giving his consent. As a matter of fact he said that he would deal with it when we come to the item. That is by no means giving consent to the question asked by the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, the minister said he would allow the question, so I think it would be all right. Why did the government not give out information regarding the number of pounds of butter being held by the government if there was no scarcity?


James Garfield Gardiner: The government not only gave out the information, but I read it very carefully from my place in the house. If the hon. member will refer to Hansard for this session he will find that at the time I announced the floor price for butter for the coming year as 58 cents, I pointed out clearly, and emphasized the fact that there had not been any shortage of butter, and there was not any shortage on the first of April of this year. We had approximately 10 million pounds.


John Alpheus Charlton: That was long after the price had gone up to 85 cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was not long after the price had gone up to 85 cents. It was just about in the middle of the experience.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Who got the difference
between the price at which it was brought in and the price at which it was sold?


James Garfield Gardiner: If we had followed the policy my hon. friend has been advocating for some years, they would have had that margin all the time. As a matter of fact by following the policy we did, butter was absolutely controlled during all the time that we had butter. We had butter until the week of March 24. While we had butter the price remained at 62 to 64 cents, but when the government had no more butter-butter was still in the country, nevertheless, in storage- the price went up as high as 84 cents. I believe a question which is just as important as why it went up is why it went down again. It went down 12 cents in two days. I have a better idea as to why that happened than I have as to why it went up. I can explain that fully when we come to discuss dairy products. It is for that reason we are interested in seeing to it that the government does have some control over the product, and for the last two years we have been attempting to have that control.
At the end of the year preceding the one about which we are now talking, we were accused of having too much butter, and we had 28 million pounds. Everyone said that was too much, and we should not have had it. It was a surplus that we could not sell. Then, when we got down to' 10 million pounds we were told we did not have any butter at all. Going back over the years we have found that when we had 10 million pounds on the first of April we had all the butter we ought to have. In the years preceding this year, the men who are now being accused of having taken too much for butter always had the right to charge more for butter in the wintertime than they paid for it in the summer. When a committee of this house investigated the matter a few years ago, it was admitted by those who are now being accused of having taken too much for butter and margarine that they did have a margin of profit of about 12 cents a pound on butter. I have not any doubt that for the short period of two or three weeks this spring these people had a margin which gave them a considerable profit.
The question which has been asked is, why did this government not do something about it? The real answer to that is that the authority is with the province. During that period any one province in which butter was stored could have controlled the butter. This government has no control over prices in

that sense except during wartime. The trouble with some of my friends is that all their experience in public life has been during wartime or since the war, and they believe the authority of this government is the same in peace as it is during a war.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: How could the provinces control the price?


James Garfield Gardiner: In exactly the same way as they now control the price of milk. A further suggestion is made that we should do something to ensure that the price of milk for all purposes is the same. Again that comes under the control of the provinces. There is an organization already set up under the provincial legislation to handle cheese in Ontario. There is no reason in the world why they cannot handle all the milk, butter, and everything else that is produced from milk in the province of Ontario in the same way as they are handling cheese under that act. Each time the question has been discussed here the method suggested is the same method as being used in connection with potatoes in the maritimes, namely that the milk be delivered to one central farmers' co-operative, and that the same price be paid for the milk no matter what use is going to be made of it. Then, there should be a final payment made on the same basis. That has been operating with regard to whole milk in every province in Canada ever since milk boards were set up, but it has not been operating in connection with milk which goes into the production of cheese, butter and canned milk.
In so far as whole milk is concerned there were quotas set before the war ever started, and the price was set. An individual was told the price at which he could sell whole milk, how much of it would go to the cheese factory or somewhere else, and that was just the beginning of the plan suggested by the hon. member. I am sure that every dairy farmer in Ontario realizes that is a matter which could be handled under the present provincial legislation in the province of Ontario, and it has been handled that way for some considerable time.


John Alpheus Charlton: I did not intend to make any remarks at this time, but I cannot let the minister get away with the statements he has just made regarding butter. It is not good for the industry to have butter prices as high as they were this winter. The minister says that we were never short of butter. On the one hand, he tells us that the price did not go up until after the government stores were depleted, while on the other he tells us the government had 10 million pounds.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say the government had 10 million pounds. I said that there
Supply-Agriculture
were 10 million pounds in storage, but we did not have it. The trade had it, and they charged what they liked for it.


John Alpheus Charlton: Is it not a fact that the government did allow a further importation of 4-5 million pounds of butter, knowing very well that there were still 10 million pounds in the country, and also allowed the trade to make practically half a million dollars' profit on that transaction?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not true either, but go on and make your speech.


John Alpheus Charlton: According to a statement the minister made at Macdonald college the price of that butter to the trade was 40-4 cents. I have not the clipping containing that statement here, but I have it in my office. That is the minister's own statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: The price of that butter to the men who purchased it, laid down in Halifax, was 56-5 cents. Never at any time have I said it was 40 cents. I have said that if it had been delivered in Canada at the same price at which it was sold to the British, it could have been delivered here at 40 cents, but it was not.


John Alpheus Charlton: Obviously, then the minister was misquoted because the 40 4 cents was mentioned in the clipping.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I have not seen that.
I have seen the statements in most newspapers, and they have never said that. The statement I made on the subject appeared in Hansard, and you can read it there and check if.


John Alpheus Charlton: I can bring the clipping down and read if to the minister. I used it in the budget debate, but the minister was not here so it was lost.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then it is not a correct statement of anything I have ever said. What I have said is in Hansard, and the hon. member can read if there.


John Alpheus Charlton: It is rather odd, Mr. Chairman, that that is the only time the 40-4 cent price ever appeared in a newspaper or anywhere else. Every other time this 56*5 cent price has been given out. I wonder whether the trade was a little displeased about that price being quoted by the minister at Macdonald college. It appears obvious that they may have been. There is no doubt that it was in that clipping dealing with the speech the minister made at Macdonald, and it was not refuted when I quoted it in the budget debate.


James Garfield Gardiner: In order to get the record straight, the first time that statement was

Supply-Agriculture
made was during a speech I read to the federation of agriculture in the city of Calgary. It is all on the record. I read it in the newspapers, and it was broadcast.


John Alpheus Charlton: I heard it.


James Garfield Gardiner: It does not come under my estimates. I do not think I can. It is under finance. The farm loan board is administered under the Department of Finance. It is not administered under my department.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend heard it, and he knows what I am now stating is correct. The statement was that if butter had been laid down in Canada on the same basis as it was sold to the British it could have been laid down here at 40-4 cents.


John Alpheus Charlton: There is no use arguing about it until I get the newspaper clipping; then I shall let the minister see it. It will prove to him that he did make that statement, or he will probably say he was misquoted.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: There is one matter which I should like to bring to the minister's attention. Many young farmers in my riding have written to me concerning the difficulties they are experiencing today in buying land. This is due to the high cost of the land, and the amount of equipment that is required on a farm. Many of these young people are finding it extremely difficult to get into farming on their own. As a result of that many of these young people are drifting into the cities, and there is an increasing amount of land being worked by tenant farmers. I believe the Saskatchewan federation of agriculture presented a brief to the cabinet a short time ago making this recommendation, and I should like to put it on Hansard.
We recommend that the federal farm loan act be amended to make provision for a program whereby fully qualified young farm people under proper supervision may secure the greater part of their capital which would be repaid on a long term amortization basis.
I presume that other provinces have the same problem. I should like the minister to tell me today whether or not the federal farm loan act could be amended in some way so that it would enable these young farmers to purchase their land at least partially through a loan. Perhaps the province should contribute some part of it. Maybe there could be a dominion-provincial agreement. But I should like to tell the minister that this is a serious problem for many of our young rural people. I do not know what the answer is but I think it should be feasible that this federal farm loan act should be extended so that young farmers could buy their farms.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item carry?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: No. I wonder if the minister can tell me if that matter is being considered?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Does the minister care to make a statement with regard to what I had to say about hogs a little while ago? I think the farmers of this country have been extremely kind to the packers.


James Garfield Gardiner: Again this is one of those questions that we could deal with better when we come to hogs. But as I remember the statement, it was to the effect that some time a few weeks ago hogs went down three or four cents.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then I had said to someone here just while the hon. member was asking about that: I wonder if he wants me to tell him why they went up again three or four cents a few days later. Then he proceeded to ask me that question himself. I cannot keep track of all the changes in price that take place at Toronto, London, Stratford or wherever one might be delivering his hogs. I know that there was for a few days a drop in the price of hogs. Then in a few days hogs went back up again. In other words, I presume that the persons who were buying hogs had a scare of some kind of something that was done in the United States or something somebody said we were going to do here, and the bidding was down; or there may have been too many hogs on some markets, and the bidding was down for a few days. But whatever happened, the price of hogs went up again inside of a few days.
Again that is a matter which is not under our control. If an Ontario farmer delivers a hog to anybody in the province of Ontario, the price control with regard to the delivery of that hog is under the provincial authority and not the federal. If a farmer tries to deliver a hog over into Manitoba, that is another question. But if one farmer is delivering a hog in the province of Ontario to somebody there, the only control over that transaction is with the province.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I should just like to say one further word. The fact is that you have to deliver your hogs at a certain weight. If you keep hogs over a certain weight, you will be docked. When there is a heavy run of hogs or a delivery of hogs, down goes the price two or three cents, and those farmers who have those hogs lose that money. There is nothing fair about that. The buyers seem to know exactly when to put that price down a few cents; they get a nice run of hogs and then

back up again it goes. I do not think there is any other reason in the world for it than to get a few cheap hogs.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am sorry to have to refer to this matter again, but the minister just said that the farm loan act would come under the Department of Finance. I realize that he is correct about that. But at the same time I know that there is no use of that coming up under finance unless the Department of Agriculture thinks that this scheme would be feasible; that is, of providing capital loans to young farmers who are trying to get started.


John Lambert Gibson: Why not to young loggers?


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: We help many people who live in the cities to buy their homes. Why would it not be just as sensible to have an act something like the National Housing Act so that young men in rural parts of the country could become established on farms? That is the only way that I can see that we are going to be able to prevent this continuous drift to the cities. I wish the minister would just say whether the department has considered that procedure. If it is not feasible -and maybe it is not-I wish he would tell us.


James Garfield Gardiner: The present provision of the farm loan act, as I recall it, is that one must have security equal to about 50 per cent. Perhaps I am going too far when I say it is in the act. It is at least in the regulations under which the act is administered. One who is making a loan from the farm loan board must be able to give security equal to 50 per cent of the loan at least. That is where the young man runs into his difficulties. He says: I cannot give security equal to 50 per cent. It is not considered wise to make loans on any other basis at the rate at which the loans are made under the farm loan act. As I recall it, the rate is 4J per cent. It is considered that if you were going to take any greater risks than are taken, you would have to have a higher rate. That is the answer that always comes back when anyone applies for a loan on a farm. They say: How much security can you give? If the young man is able to give 50 per cent security, he can get the loan. If he is not, he may find some difficulty in getting it, unless he can get someone who is willing to give that 50 per cent security for him.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: If I may, I just want to say to the minister that a few years ago that was not too bad when the amount involved was only $1,000 or several thousand dollars. But today, with the high cost of land and the high cost of equipment, even $10,000 in my 80709-231
S upp ly-A griculture
part of the country will not go too far when you start out to equip a farm. I therefore think that the time has come to amend this act and to make it more extensive.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have the quotation from Hansard here. Obviously I must have read the clipping, in view of the fact that it appears in Hansard. I can get the clipping later and show it to the minister. But if I may be allowed to do so, I should like to read the quotation as it appears in Hansard, as taken from the Globe and Mail of March 1, 1951. It is as follows:
Food Producers Merit Fair Prices, Gardiner Holds
Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Feb. 27-Canadian Press-Agriculture Minister Gardiner said today that Canadian food producers have two primary objectives-to produce enough food for our own people and to sell at a sufficiently high price to encourage them to keep on producing. New Zealand butter, which Mr. Gardiner said the government did not want to see brought into Canada, was laid down at Halifax at a cost of 40-4 cents a pound. The floor price in Canada was 53 cents. Canadian farmers could not compete with New Zealand butter. The butter dealers were selling the imported butter at 56J cents a pound.
"The market price in this country must be comparatively high," said the minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is obviously pretty badly mixed up. I have here the statement which was made. It is as follows:
Britain would have been quite prepared to buy all New Zealand's surplus, but New Zealand thought she could sell considerable outside the agreement at a higher price. She asked to have 10 per cent released from the agreement, but after considerable negotiation Britain got 92 per cent-
Since this speech was made I learned that she really got 90 per cent.
-at 33-3 cents per pound f.o.b. New Zealand. This is equivalent to 40-4 cents landed at Halifax.
The New Zealand Co-op sold the 8 per cent to Canadian importers at 56J cents a pound landed at Halifax.
My hon. friend listened to this statement when it was read to him and others at Calgary. Why does he try to make me say something else, when he sat and listened to me read it? It does not matter what the Globe and Mail says I said. He knows what I said1.


John Alpheus Charlton: If the minister is saying that I did not read the article right, may I say that I read only what is in the article. I did not hear what he said in Macdonald.
I only heard what he said at Calgary.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is just the same as what I said everywhere. The statement continues:
The New Zealand Co-op sold the 8 per cent to Canadian importers at 56i cents a pound landed at Halifax. If you deduct 5 cents for duty, this leaves about 11 cents a pound profit over the British price.
That is the statement. Different arguments were based upon that statement but these are the facts in connection with it.

Sup p ly-A griculture


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I have a few remarks to make before this item is carried. Before I start my remarks I wish to say that hon. members on this side of the house and over there in what we call the "rump" are very thankful for the effort the Minister of Agriculture is making to help agriculture all the way through. If the bom. member for Brant-Wemtworth would be a little more helpful to the Minister of Agriculture instead of jumping on him with both feet at every chance he gets we would get along a little better.
It has been clearly demonstrated this afternoon that those who want to obtain a federal subsidy on potatoes have to work through the provincial governments. The provincial governments have to ask for it. When.' I mentioned potatoes in Manitoba last year I was told that the amount produced there did not warrant a subsidy. However I want to assure the Minister of Agriculture that the hundreds of farmers along the Red river, both north and south of Winnipeg on both sides of the river, produce hundreds of thousands of bushels. If other governments are applying for a federal subsidy then I shall have to make it my business to inform the provincial government of Manitoba to apply for the subsidy on behalf of those farmers out there. They are not blaming the Minister of Agriculture for not paying a subsidy heretofore. The sole responsibility will be put on the provincial government.
A little while ago butter was mentioned. I am in agreement with some of the hon. members who have criticized the amount of labour it takes to produce a pound of butter and the amount of labour it takes to produce a pound of margarine. There is a great difference in producing a pound of margarine as compared with a pound of butter. It takes much more labour to produce a pound of butter. It is up to this government to stop the seal oil and whale oil coming in at low prices. It is coming in at 23 cents odd, and last year it was as low as 11 cents odd. Since I happen to have a little invested in the whale oil business myself I know what it is being purchased for. Last year Canada Packers purchased from the Adanac Whale and Fish Company many thousands of gallons of oil at 11 cents odd a gallon, and that same oil is being manufactured into margarine.


An hon. Member:: It was 11 cents a pound.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Eleven cents a pound, rather. Here is something to which I object rather strongly. The people of Canada are told by the press in big headlines that now you can colour Parkay margarine in two minutes or less. In other words, they are trying to make the white margarine into a package that looks like butter, and therefore they are trying to

fool the public. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are paid out in advertising margarine. If the public is going to fall for that stuff it is their fault. It would be to the advantage of the dairy farmers and the dairy producers all through the country to counteract these margarine advertisements in the paper and tell the people just what they are getting for their money.


Mr. Sinclair:: Good food.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: It may be good for the pigs, or something like that, but not for the people. We now have interruptions from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, who was responsible for making the manufacture of margarine legal in Canada, thereby doing a great disservice to the consumers of the country.


James Sinclair: The Supreme Court of Canada did that.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Possibly. Let me relieve him a little of his misgivings. The power is now given to the provincial governments to ban margarine. I must give the province of Quebec and the premier of Quebec great credit for prohibiting the manufacture of margarine in that province.


James Sinclair: Tory reaction.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: If the Tories in Ontario would do the same thing, and if the government in Manitoba would bar the manufacture of margarine-


Mr. Brooks:: How about the groups in the maritimes?


James Garfield Gardiner: Jones did it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: If you have a bone of contention, bring it forth and see if you can get the legislation passed.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My contention is, you should
not leave them out.


James Sinclair: Are you a Liberal?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The parliamentary assistant
to the Minister of Finance asks me if I am a Liberal. Let me say this to him before it is too late. Hundreds of thousands of farm boys are leaving the farms because they cannot produce butter as margarine is produced. If my hon. friend to my left had milked a few cows himself and had cleaned a few barns he would know what labour goes into a pound of butter. Probably this year when he is on his way home I will invite him in to see how the barns are cleaned.


James Sinclair: You won't have to clean
barns if you use margarine.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: No, but at this time when
we need every Canadian dollar we can get

we are importing all this cheap oil from the United States and also the ingredients that go into the manufacture of margarine. It is time to put a stop to it.


Mr.. Carroll:: Talk to the Minister of
National Revenue.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: We have had a little information from Saskatchewan with regard to the dominion government helping those people on land. All I can say is that this is another matter which should be left to the government of Saskatchewan.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Why should it be?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I will tell you why.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Why?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Just a minute. It should be left to the government of Saskatchewan which at the present time is making it as difficult as it can for the-


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Don't you think that the
C.C.F. government-	,


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Just a minute until I am
finished. Then you can have your say. If the government of Saskatchewan would give the farm boys a chance, would give them an opportunity to buy some of that provincial land-


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: They are doing it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: They are not giving any farm boy in Saskatchewan a chance to buy one acre of land.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That is nonsense, and you
know it.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The provincial government
of Saskatchewan will not sell one acre of land-


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: That is nonsense.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member
will address himself to the Chair. I do not believe he should discuss policies which are enforced by the provincial government of Saskatchewan.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: He is not discussing anything.


Louis-René Beaudoin: He should relate his remarks to agriculture as administered by the federal government.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just following up the discussion-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. An hon.
member is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Carroll:: It may be a little late, but I do not think that the subject of oleomargarine is a proper subject to be discussed 80709-2314
Supply-Agriculture
in this house. I think it is absolutely out of order, especially on the estimates that are before the committee at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Why?


William F. Carroll: The ingredients that go into the manufacture of margarine come within the customs department, andi should not be discussed when the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture are before the house.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Do you think it has nothing to do with agriculture?


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member
will realize that while the hon. member is discussing the production of margarine he is also discussing dairy products, and that therefore he may be in order in the general discussion. In any event, the hon. member has raised his point of order, and has put the question up to the Chairman. I must remind him, in any event, the point of order is raised, as he says, too late. The matter is over now.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just following up the matter that the hon. member for Moose Jaw took up with the Minister of Agriculture, and I was pointing out very clearly why it was so difficult for the young fellows in Saskatchewan to get a start under the government of that province. In regard to the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, who interrupted me by saying that we had no right to discuss-[DOT]


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond raised a point of order on which I have ruled. The hon. member may continue his speech.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: We are now discussing agriculture. Until something comes along to displace it, I think we would be doing the farmers of Canada a great disservice if in the House of Commons we did not come to their protection. The farmers in the House of Commons are unorganized and do not stand in the same category as hardware men, lumber producers, or any of these high-powered selling organizations.


James Sinclair: And they never got $65 million.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I wish the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance would address the Chair when he speaks. That $65 million refers to agriculture, too. I would tell him, however, that it will be a long time before the farmers of Canada will have anything like 90 per cent of parity.


Mr. Blackmore:: I should like to ask the minister two general questions. Perhaps they should be asked later, but this would seem

Supply-Agriculture
to be an opportune time. The first has to do with the over-all policy of the Department of Agriculture. Since we have been discussing wheat at this session, and since so many people from other parts of Canada seem to feel so unhappy because the farmers of the west are given some consideration, I wonder if it would not be wise for the minister to lay down the over-all policy of the government in respect of agriculture. Is not the government trying to be just as fair to the potato producers in the maritime provinces as it is to the wheat producers? Is there any such thing as discrimination between the treatment of one group and that of the other? I do not believe there is. But if the minister were to lay down what the policy is it would prevent those who represent certain other portions of agriculture from everlastingly making remarks to the effect that the amount they are getting is not fair.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We never got $65 million.


John Horne Blackmore: And we have to take all that kind of nonsense, too. Why do not the members from the maritimes get up and make a plea for their own welfare, rather than criticize others? Why do they not do something positive? Let them state what they want and why they want it, instead of everlastingly whining and complaining because others are getting what they are seeking.
The same thing applies to Ontario. As a member of parliament I am prepared to support the interests of agriculture in any part of the country-and I do not care what part it is. I expect all people from all parts of the country to feel the same way about it. The sooner we all do that, instead of acting like a lot of silly crabs, the better we shall get along. But we should have a policy laid down so that every member will realize that there has been an attempt to treat all parts of the country fairly.


Mr. Riley:: Mr. Chairman, I suggest the
language being used by the hon. member for Lethbridge in respect of the maritime provinces is unparliamentary, and that he should withdraw it. He referred to maritime members as whiners and crabs. I suggest that, in a manly fashion, he should withdraw those remarks.


John Horne Blackmore: If my remarks have
offended the hon. member, then, in as manly a fashion as I can, I shall withdraw.
I should like to mention one further matter. I believe we are safe in saying that the business of agriculture is to see to it that we have the food for Canada that we need, and that we have food for export where we can export it profitably. Would the minister tell the committee what the general policy of the

government is toward ensuring adequately the production of various commodities in Canada we are going to need. I am sure the minister has some policy in mind, but it has not been stated before the house up to the moment. For instance, I have been alarmed, as I am sure other hon. members have been, to see the number of milch cows being so rapidly depleted in Ontario. To my mind that would seem to be a completely unsound situation, and I would like the minister to tell us in a general way what the Department of Agriculture has in mind to balance up the over-all production in Canada so that we shall not be running into the danger of a shortage of milk in various parts of the country.
I hope I have made my two requests clear. I am asking, first, for the over-all policy of the government in its attempt to be fair to the producers of all kinds of food in Canada, whether it be in connection with the production of potatoes, cheese, pork, beef, wheat or any other commodity. Secondly, I would like the minister to state the over-all policy pursued by the government in an endeavour to maintain a proper supply position in Canada, so that our granary, our pantry, our larder, whatever we choose to call it, will be normal and equal to the demands which may be made upon it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it would be as convincing for me to outline a plan or the plans which have been put into effect, and I do not know just why I should be asked to do it. At page 1494 of Hansard for this session, I placed on record at the request of hon. members the results of the policy.
I think it was agreed then that we had paid $731 million over a period of about ten years to the farmers in subsidies, premiums and payments of other kinds, including somewhere in the neighbourhood of $18 million a year in freight assistance in order to make it possible to have many of these products produced at a cost lower than they otherwise would have been produced for a considerable section of Canada. Anyone who examines that record will agree, I suggest, that we did divide the money as equally as possible among all the farmers, in accordance with their needs, at the time the action was taken.
That general policy has been carried out since 1944 under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, which I hold here in my hand. One member after another has risen in his place and suggested that we should follow the policy that has been followed in the United States. I do not like to make critical statements about what has happened in another country; but one has only to mention

3G27
what did happen in connection with potatoes, which have been discussed here today. One need only mention what happened in connection with eggs, and in connection with other farm products which are more or less perishable because of the policy of encouraging production which was followed in the United States.
You may follow policies which are based upon some formula that some college professor works out-and they may lead you farther than expected. These formulae which are supposed to settle everything are all very nice when they are set out, but when you see the results of some of them you hesitate to put them into effect. We have not followed the plan in that regard which has been followed in the United States. In other words, we have not set parity at a certain level and said that we were going to guarantee 90 per cent of parity. We said something a little different. In order to recall to hon. members' minds what we did say, I am going to read one section of the act of 1944 under which assistance has been given to farmers in whatever section of Canada they may be living and whatever they may be producing. Section 9 of the Agricultural Prices Support Act reads:
(1) For the purposes of this act, the board shall, subject to and in accordance with regulations made by the governor in council, have authority
(a)	to prescribe from time to time, with the approval of the governor in council, prices at which the board may purchase agricultural products in the market:
Just to call your attention to what we are doing, we say: "We will buy all the butter anyone will -sell us at 58 cents; we will buy all the eggs that anyone will deliver to us in the fall of the year at 38 cents; we will buy all the pork that is delivered to us on the basis of $32.50," and so on. In other words, we have acted under that section in connection with many farm products. The next paragraph reads:
(b)	to purchase at such prices any agricultural product, if such product, on inspection, meets standards as to grade and quality prescribed by or under any act of the parliament of Canada; provided that any agricultural product, for which dominion government standards have not been established, may be purchased by the board on such basis of quality as the board may prescribe;
(c)	to pay to the producers of an agricultural product directly or through such agent as the board may determine the difference between a price prescribed by the board with the approval of the governor in council for such product and the average price, as determined by the board, at which such product is sold in the market during a specified period if such average price is below such prescribed price;
Supply-A griculture
It is under that section that we can distribute $300,000 to the potato growers.


John Horne Blackmore: Was it under that particular provision that the $65 million was paid to the wheat growers of the west?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. It definitely states at the beginning of the act that it does not apply to wheat. All that we would have needed to do in order to have wheat on the same basis as any other farm product would have been to amend the act. Then we could have paid $65 million to the wheat producers as a subsidy in the same way as we have paid $149 million to the dairy industry. When hon. members get up in the house and say that we have paid out $65 million to the wheat growers, in the first place that was not done in the sense that you can pay a subsidy under this act. It was done for other reasons. Other products have been brought under this particular legislation during this period of time.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister is telling me exactly what I wanted to hear. Is there any protection for the wheat grower under any particular act?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no special protection. Wheat is delivered to the wheat board under the terms of the international wheat agreement which was drawn up by some 40 countries meeting at Washington. They agreed as to what price would be paid for the distribution of certain quotas of wheat from different countries. The farmer has the protection that wheat will not be sold during the present year under $1.30 per bushel; that is, he cannot be compelled to sell at under $1.30 per bushel, and the consumer is protected at the other end by the provision that the producer cannot demand more than $1.80 for it. Whether you can call that assistance or protection, the fact is that he is operating under it.


John Horne Blackmore: The minister is discussing the international wheat agreement.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister is referring to
the payment that could be made to the potato producers under this act, and he said that the wheat producers were not under it but that the $65 million could have been paid under the act.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, could not have been
paid.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Could have been paid if
wheat had been included. Were the payments to the dairy producers and others

Supply-Agriculture
based more or less on the cost of production and was the price in the case of wheat-


James Garfield Gardiner: If I may rise to a point of order, I am trying to put on the record the answers to what my hon. friend the member for Lethbridge has suggested and I think it would be better if they were to go on the record.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The hon. member for Lethbridge seemed to be satisfied with what he was hearing, but I do not feel that I am satisfied that the potato producer and the wheat producer are in the same category.


James Garfield Gardiner: You will be better satisfied if you let me finish reading this. The next paragraphs read:
(d)	to sell or otherwise dispose of any agricultural product purchased by the board;
<e) to package, process, store, ship, transport, export or insure any agricultural product;
(f)	to enter into contracts or appoint agents to do anything authorized under this act;
(g)	to purchase at market or contract prices and export any agricultural product under any contract between His Majesty in right of Canada and any other government or agency thereof and to do all things necessarily incidental thereto;
(h)	to purchase at the request of any department of the government of Canada any agricultural product required by such department;
(i)	to appoint commodity boards or other agents to undertake the purchase and the disposition of agricultural products;
(j)	to appoint a committee or committees to assist the beard in an advisory capacity.
Those are all the different paragraphs of subsection 1 and they indicate what the government can do about prices. Then when we come to deal with the question as to whether we should have a formula to indicate what parity is and operate under that, that is dealt with in subsection 2 in this way:
(2) In prescribing prices under paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection one of this section, the board shall endeavour to ensure adequate and stable returns for agriculture by promoting orderly adjustment from war to peace conditions and shall endeavour to secure a fair relationship between the returns from agriculture and those from other occupations.
That does not use the word "parity", but it sets out in clear language that costs are to be taken into consideration when the price offered by the government is set. We took into consideration the cost of producing butter when we said that we are prepared to pay 58 cents. We took into consideration the cost of producing other products when we suggested that we were prepared to buy them at particular prices. I think the results that we have obtained in that regard all along the line have been fairly satisfactory. In the case of butter, we started out 
at 58 cents and we operated for one year. As I remember, nearly every hon. member who spoke in this house criticized us because we were getting too much butter. They said that we would not be able to sell it. Then we out it down 5 cents and now they tell us we did not get enough butter.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister was worried himself.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have put it up 5 cents, and it is again at 58 cents.


John Alpheus Charlton: Will the minister suggest that is the cost price of producing butter?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would suggest that farmers -and I am speaking of the general run of farmers, not some fellow who is farming on $500 an acre land just outside the city of Toronto or some other place-who are milking half a dozen to a dozen cows on their farms, and farmers in our section of Canada where all the surplus butter is produced if there is any produced, have produced it for very much less.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is not answering the question.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I were to ask my hon. friend whether he thinks 25 cents would be enough he would probably say "no" quite readily. If I were to ask him whether 75 cents was too much he would probably say yes. The actual cost is somewhere in between, and I would say to him that I doubt whether there are any two farmers in Canada whose costs are exactly the same.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That is true.


Mr. Lennard:: The real cost is in between what?


James Garfield Gardiner: Seventy-five and twenty-five. Fifty-eight cents is not very far from halfway between. In any case, after giving consideration to all the facts as they were presented to us we said: We will buy any butter that is offered to us at 58 cents. We said that one year and we got 60 million pounds. We said 53 cents the next year and we got 34 million pounds. We have said 58 cents this year and up until today we have not got any, but that does not mean we will not get any between now and next fall. We may get some at 58 cents some time. If we do not it will be because butter is selling at a higher price right across Canada, and for no other reason. Figured on the same basis as 58 cents was, I am told that butter is now selling at approximately 63 to 64 cents. If it is, the farmer is selling in a market that is 5 cents higher than the floor that we set, and I do not think any farmer is going to criticize the fact that he is getting 5 cents more.

I do not know just what our position is going to be next winter, but we have taken care of that as far as we can in making provision that this coming year if any butter is imported from New Zealand it will be imported by the government. That provision has already been made, and that fact has been made known to our friends in New Zealand. Therefore we think the matter is pretty well under control. Some of the money I spoke of was made available prior to 1944, but with this legislation on the statute books we have paid to farmers in different parts of Canada since that time a very considerable amount of money. To make it absolutely clear that wheat is not included in any way I will read the definition section of the act. It is as follows:
In this act and any regulation hereunder, unless the context otherwise requires:
(a) "agricultural product" means any natural product of agriculture, except wheat, designated1 by the governor in council, andi includes processed meat, dairy and poultry products if so designated...
It denies us the right to designate wheat as coming under this act.


Frank Exton Lennard: There is one question I should like to ask that seems peculiar to this department. I see that there are two special assistants to the minister who apparently receive more individually than the assistant deputy minister. I do not know of any other department of the government that is set up that way. Can the minister explain that?


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not just follow the question. The suggestion is that there are two men getting more than the deputy?


Frank Exton Lennard: I did not say that. I said they were getting more than the assistant deputy minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: Than the assistant deputy.


Frank Exton Lennard: It is right in the estimates at page 73. My glasses are not steamed over.


James Garfield Gardiner: I wish my hon. friend would read the items.


Frank Exton Lennard: I will. It is under administration service, departmental administration. The deputy minister receives $15,000, two special assistants to the minister receive $19,752, or will for this year, and the assistant deputy minister receives $8,000.


James Garfield Gardiner: The explanation of that is that one of the special assistants referred to is Dr. Barton.
Supply-Agriculture Mr. Lennard: The deputy minister.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, he is not the deputy minister. Mr. Taggart is the deputy minister. Dr. Barton was the deputy minister for many years, as members of the house know. We extended his time for two years. He had been utilized over a period in connection with the activities of FAO, our international obligations in connection with the United Nations organization. When Mr. Taggart took over the position of deputy minister we asked Dr. Barton to remain as an adviser to myself to attend these functions and take on the responsibilities with regard to them. I think everyone in the house will agree we could not have any better person to do that. His payment is the same as he obtained when he was deputy minister, $15,000. The other item is one of $4,700 which brings the total up to $19,700. That is for a man in my own office who draws $4,700. When you put the two of them together it almost appears as if there were two persons getting more. There is only one getting more. I think the assistant gets $8,000.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to ask the minister a question arising out of his remarks with respect to the Agricultural Prices Support Act of 1944. I think he said that since 1944 the department had paid over $700 million.
I did not get the exact amount.


James Garfield Gardiner: No. If I gave that impression it was the wrong one. What the record that was put on Hansard indicates is that over a period of about ten years, which includes most of the war and up until the present time, there has been $731 million paid out, but only a part of what has been paid out since 1944 has been paid out under this act. It is not $731 million. It is a lesser amount. I have not got the figure readily available but I could get it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Could the minister let us know now or at some other time how much has been paid to each province out of this amount under the Agricultural Prices Support Act?


James Garfield Gardiner: In 1946 $170,748.48 was paid to Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick for potatoes, and in 1948 $1,646,839.34. I wonder if the hon. member would allow me to put this table on the record rather than reading all the figures. There is about a page and a half.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the minister have leave to put this table on Hansard"!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Supply-Agriculture Mr. Gardiner: The table is as follows:
MEMORANDUM Agricultural Prices Support Act
The following products have been assisted under the act since it came into force:
Product
1.	Potatoes grown in Prince Edward Island and designated areas of
New Brunswick and Quebec in 1946	
2.	Potatoes grown in Prince Edward Island and designated areas of
New Brims wick in 1948	 [DOT]
Net Cost $ 170,748.48
1,646,839.34 $1,817,587.82
3.	Apples grown in designated areas of Nova Scotia in 1947	
4.	Apples grown in designated areas of Nova Scotia in 1948 to a
maximum of 700,000 barrels	
5.	Apples grown in designated areas of British Columbia in 1948 to
a maximum of 250,000 boxes	
6.	Apple shipments to the United Kingdom from the 1949 crop in
Nova Scotia and British Columbia to a maximum cost of $1,500,000
3,119,274.22
1.443.231.39 44,650.93
1.499.569.40
6,106,725.94
7.	Dried white beans grading Canada No. 1 and Canada No. 2 grown
in 1948 in Ontario to a maximum cost of $200,000	
8.	Dry skimmed milk manufactured in 1949, purchases to a maximum
of $1,000,000	
9.	Extracted- honey produced in Canada in 1948, purchases limited
to a maximum of 5,000,000 pounds	
10.	Cheddar cheese produced from August to December, 1949, in
Ontario and Quebec	
11. First grade creamery butter produced in 1949-50	 1,868,071.12
12. First grade creamery butter produced in 1950-51	 -459 855.00
194,419.88
10,820.35
177,011.42
157,693.98
1,408,216.12
13. Shell eggs out of storage at an appropriate date late in 1950 if stored to the board's specifications as grade A large and grade A medium	
Total net cost to March 31, 1951

The following items are at present under support:
14.	Shell eggs out of storage at an appropriate date late in 1951, if stored to the board's specifications as grade A large and grade A medium.
15.	Hogs. Pork products on the basis of Wiltshire sides processed in accordance with the
board s specifications.
16. First grade creamery butter produced in 1951-52 and 1952-53.
I7'	Srade Canadian Cheddar cheese produced in Ontario and Quebec in 1951.
The agricultural prices support board has no stocks on hand at the present time and the 5i!V!Pr!uenl1!s complete net cost to date with the exception of a few small items of expense related to the 1950-51 butter program for which bills were not rendered in time to be paid in the fiscal year.	*


Mr. Jones:: Apparently this act could cover fruit, and' I should like to refer particularly to apples. Has consideration ever been given to bringing apples under the operation of the act? I feel that the apple growers, particularly in British Columbia, who have been very hard hit and find it difficult in some years to find markets through conditions beyond their control-for instance loss of the United Kingdom market and so on-should be given some consideration. I presume the minister has given consideration to bringing apples under the provisions of the act. If he has, I should like to know, and if he has not I would ask him if he would see if help could not be given to those growers.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, when this list appears on the record tomorrow, as it will, it will indicate payments in respect of apples grown in the designated areas in Nova Scotia in 1947 amounting to $3,119,274.22; apples grown in designated areas in Nova Scotia in 1948, $1,443,231.39; then, apple shipments to the United Kingdom from the 1949 crop in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, to the maximum cost of $1,500,000, an amount of $1,499,569.40. I would call the committee's attention to the fact that during the last year we did pay $2 million under this act to British Columbia, and we paid $500,000 to

Nova Scotia, so I believe the apple growers have pretty well received their share under the act.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: Does the minister intend putting a definite floor price under maritime potatoes for the crop that is now being planted, and if not why not?


James Garfield Gardiner: I may say that the matter is pretty much in the hands of the producers in Nova Scotia. Before we would even consider the matter, it would be necessary for them- to be organized in a manner similar to those who have been helped.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: Will you do that in Prince
Edward Island and New Brunswick?


James Garfield Gardiner: They have not asked us yet, but I expect they will.


John Horne Blackmore: Is the minister in a position to tell the country why wheat was not included in this act? What is there about wheat that puts it in a class by itself, so that it has to stand out in the storm?


James Garfield Gardiner: The main answer to that is the statement which was made on the floor of the house at the time-1944-a part of which has been quoted quite a few times. When we put this act through to provide $200 million with which to take care of difficulties that might arise in connection with other farm products, it was clearly stated at that time that if it became necessary to handle wheat under the conditions that existed in the thirties, it could not be done with $200 million. It was suggested that wheat be left out of this act. Just to indicate the difficulty to the committee, I remind members that in the areas where wheat is grown we paid out $186 million for relief in the thirties. With all the experience that was behind us we thought, and I believe we were right, that if we brought a measure into this house saying that we were going to spend $200 million on all farm products including wheat, most representatives of farm constituencies in this country would have said that wheat would get all of it. Wheat was left out. It was definitely said at the time that if it were ever necessary to deal with wheat it could be dealt with under the wheat board which is definitely set up for the purpose of marketing wheat. It was felt that that was the proper place to deal with it.


Mr. Wrighi:: I notice that in connection with the first item, administration, there has been a reduction of some $40,000 for staff. I notice that the reductions have all been in the permanent positions, rather than for temporary assistance. In reducing staff, I would have thought that temporary assistants
Supply-A griculture
would have been the first group to lose their positions, rather than the permanent staff. Perhaps there is a logical explanation for it?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is an increase, not a decrease.


Percy Ellis Wright: I beg your pardon.


Mr. Quelch:: Is Dr. Barton still the chairman of the committee on commodity problems under the FAO?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, he is.


Victor Quelch: Then, is it in order to discuss the FAO? There is only one question I want to ask. I understand that the committee on commodity problems handled surplus food products from the United States. They informed member countries of the FAO that they were prepared to dispose of certain surplus food products. As a matter of fact, I understand a great deal of surplus food was actually given away. My question is, has Canada disposed of any of her surplus food products through this committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: This committee receives information from all the countries in the world who are members of the United Nations -I believe some that are not members too- concerning the production of food in those countries and any surpluses that they might have available. In that sense the committee has knowledge of our position in Canada. Any surpluses that we have are made known to other countries, and that does assist in having them distributed.


Victor Quelch: What I mean is that the United States apparently gave away surplus food products. Has Canada given away any surplus food through the committee?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have given away food products. I have not a list here but we are talking now of giving some food to India, and that would be dealt with in a similar way.


John Horne Blackmore: I have just one more question following along the lines of the questions I have asked of the minister concerning wheat. By what criterion would the government determine the point at which it would become necessary to assist the v.'heat grower?


James Garfield Gardiner: I must say that it is not really in our hands at all. It comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce, because that department is handling the marketing of wheat. Perhaps I should not say it does not come under our department at all, because the matter of production is under this department as well as the provincial departments. What we do say to the provincial governments when they -ask us to help

Supply-Agriculture
the wheat grower is that the province is responsible for providing seed, for example. This spring many of the farmers said that the seed was not good. The oats were frozen, the barley was frozen, and they were really concerned about sowing wheat that was frozen. Some of them wrote to us and asked whether we were going to assist with seed. We wrote back saying that that was a provincial responsibility.
When they come and ask us for assistance because the farmers are experiencing difficulties, we would say that our assistance is provided through the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. We contend that any assistance which should be given by the dominion government is made avalaible through that act. If there is to be any further assistance to individuals it ought to be made by the province or the province and municipality combined. That is the line of discussion which takes place.
In the matter of marketing wheat, it is marketed under the wheat board. The question has not really arisen since the passing of this act. The main belief when this act was passed was that, long before this, the bottom would have fallen out of farm prices. The bottom has not fallen out of farm prices. The problem that was really in people's minds when this act was passed has not arisen. We have made provisions for floor prices under the act in connection with farm products, and they have been set at a level which was never anticipated when the act was passed.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not sure that I conveyed to the minister just the question that was in my mind. If I recall correctly, he used words somewhat like these when he was discussing the act a moment ago; that if the time ever did come when it would become necessary to assist the wheat producers-do I quote substantially the minister's remarks?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what I said in 1944.


John Horne Blackmore: What I am trying to give the minister an opportunity of expressing to the house, as I am sure he is able to do, is this: By what criterion would he determine, at any given point, whether or not the time had come when it was "necessary" to assist the wheat growers?


James Garfield Gardiner: I would only say that if it became the opinion of the government that wheat should be dealt with under this act it would be dealt with in just the same manner as are all other farm products. We made a complete record of the prices of farm commodities, or at least the board that was set up under this act made a complete record of the prices of farm products over a three-year period, 1944 being the third year.

At that time the farmers said: We have had the best return for our farm products, over 1942, 1943, and 1944, that we ever had in our history. They said: We want that position maintained as long as it can be maintained. We said: All right, we will try to do that under this act. We therefore made a record of the prices and, so far as we could, of the costs of production at that time.
That record is there. When we come to consider what ought to be done this year with regard to any product, we go back and check with that record. When we last discussed this question the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth was present, as were one or two other members of the house, down at Niagara Falls two years ago, I think it was, at the federation meeting. We had the United States authorities there. Both the United States authorities and Mr. Hope, who checks these matters for the farm federation, finally stated at that meeting that our bases of establishing the cost relationships as between what the farmer is selling and what he is buying had really been a little bit more effective up to that time than those that had been followed elsewhere. We think they still are.
If we were called upon to deal with wheat, we would deal with it in exactly the same manner. We have all the records with regard to the prices of wheat back in this three-year period. We would take that as the basis. We have the records, so far as they are available to anyone, of the costs of production of wheat in that period. We would compare the present costs of production with the costs then. I do not say that would prove that the farmer is entitled to some support. It might be possible that it would. Nevertheless, that would be the plan thjt would be followed.


John Horne Blackmore: I greatly appreciate that statement. It is becoming more definite all the time. We have more or less been wandering around in the,dark because we did not have anything definite to work on. In effect, the minister has told us that the base period for computing this necessity is that of 1942, 1943 and 1944. Has the minister at any place put on record the figures which obtained with respect to wheat in those years or in that base period?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are on record in the report. I have the report here for every year since 1914. They are on record, and I presume hon. members have them. They keep quoting them all the time-for example, when it was stated here the other day that the net return to farmers in the last year, 1950, was lower than it was in 1949. If that

quotation is taken from a document, it is taken from the report of the bureau of statistics. In that report of the bureau of statistics all the farm products are dealt with. You can go right back over the years. They are all on file. You can get them for any year in a few minutes' time by going down to the department and asking for them. They can tell you exactly what the price of wheat was at that particular time, averaged over a period. They can also tell you what the costs were over that period of time, in so far as they have figured them. It is those figures that we use as the basis when we start to compute what the position is.


John Horne Blackmore: Since the minister has said that he has the figures before him, would he mind giving us the prices for 1942, 1943 and 1944? It seems to me that this is an appropriate place for them to be placed on the record. I refer to the figures showing what the farmers received for their wheat and the cost of production.


James Garfield Gardiner: Being "before me" is not quite so simple a matter as my hon. friend takes it to be. The information is before me all right, but it is in this pile.


John Horne Blackmore: Maybe the minister would rather give that information a- little later on.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it is better to have that kind of information given when we are discussing the item.


John Horne Blackmore: On the item of wheat, then.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration service-
2. Information service, $347,412.
Mr. Calherwood:: I feel that this information service given by the department is extremely valuable to farmers. I hope that it continues to be put out. The days of the ordinary farmer are a thing of the past. Today the farmer must be highly specialized. He must be an expert in matters pertaining to the soil and to fertilizers. He must be an expert mechanic. Today agriculture is highly mechanized, and to be a real agricultural producer you must be thoroughly acquainted with all modern methods of agriculture. I hope that this question of information is given constant review by the department. I think this is an important matter. I think the department should keep the farmers up to date on all the newest methods; because in this day and age we must have for the farmer all the advanced methods.


Percy Ellis Wright: I approve what the hon.
member has just said. I would ask the minister if any pamphlets have been issued
Supply-Agriculture
this year with respect to chemical weed sprays. They play an important part in grain farming today.


James Garfield Gardiner: A pamphlet is being put out, but it is not quite ready for circulation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration service-
3. Advisory committee on agricultural services,
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Who are the personnel of this advisory committee, and what travelling do they do to account for a cost of $5,000?


James Garfield Gardiner: As to the members of the national committee on agricultural services, the chairman is the Minister of Agriculture. The provincial ministers of agriculture are the other members. There are ten of them. There are therefore eleven altogether. I think it will be agreed that if you call meetings of those particular individuals, $5,000 is not a high amount.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: No, not when you have
eleven.


Frank Exton Lennard: Are travelling expenses paid by the provinces? This item is for the minister's own travelling expenses, is it not?


James Garfield Gardiner: The out-of-pocket expenses are paid by us. The provinces pay their salaries, of course.


Frank Exton Lennard: It is travelling expenses; and I would think that the provinces themselves always have expense accounts. They pay their own expenses, do they not?


James Garfield Gardiner: The main part of the
payment actually has to do with those who come along to advise. They are the advisory committee. Quite a number of them are the members of staffs of agricultural colleges where there is no special provision made for this kind of thing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Science service-
Botany and plant pathology-
10.	Operation and maintenance, $1,345,552.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The science building at
Charlottetown was completely destroyed by fire last winter, and all their records and everything else were lost. I was just wondering whether a new building was under erection there yet and what was being done with regard to the safety of their records in the future.


James Garfield Gardiner: The plans for the rebuilding of the building are all prepared, and it is expected that they will be able to let the contract in about four or five weeks' time.

Supply-Agriculture


Lewis Elston Cardiff: What is the reason for the increase in the cost?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is the new laboratories that were opened. Hon. members will recall that they were opened last year, and it is the new cost in connection with them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Botany and plant pathology-
11.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $178,600.
John Horne Blackmore: Before we get too far
away, under what item does the minister suggest we should ask for the prices of wheat and the cost of production of wheat during the years 1942, 1943 and 1944, which years he has specified as the base period?


James Garfield Gardiner: Under production service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agricultural chemistry-
12.	Operation and maintenance, $503,410.
A. Earl Catherwood: Chemistry is one of the basic ways of dealing with agricultural experiment and study. There is a slight increase of some thousands of dollars in this item. This is one that we should all approve. Can the minister give us a little information as to what this item covers? What is the work they do?


James Garfield Gardiner: The services to the various departments of agriculture across Canada have been increased somewhat, but a considerable part of the amount is for the same reason that I gave in the other instance. The places that have been opened require further expansion in connection with chemistry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agricultural entomology-
14. Operation and maintenance, $1,663,234.
Percy Ellis Wright: I am not sure whether the question I want to ask comes under this item, agricultural entomology, or under forest entomology. It has to do with the epidemic of caterpillars at present prevailing in Sault Ste. Marie, and in other parts of the province of Ontario. I hold in my hand an article which states that these pests are serious this year. The method of fighting them that has been used up to the present time is the use of D.D.T. Has there been further investigation of other methods of fighting the tent caterpillar? I believe we have a new laboratory at Sault Ste. Marie dealing with forest entomology. Have there been any new developments in the method of combating these pests?


James Garfield Gardiner: The federal government provides the technical staff to make investigations of that kind of thing, but the actual work in connection with the fighting of pests
:Mr. Gardiner.]
of that kind is done by the province. The province pays for the necessary ingredients that are used1 in fighting them. We have put on the technical staff.


Percy Ellis Wright: I understood that the research work on this was being done by the minister's department.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the technical end of the work, the research in connection with it. But when the task of fighting it is taken on in accordance with the views that are held by the technicians it is done by the provinces. I am informed that no new methods have been found recently.


Percy Ellis Wright: There have been no new developments in this field?


James Garfield Gardiner: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forest entomology-
16. Operation and maintenance, $1,153,447.
Frank Thomas Stanfield: Does the care of forest trees come under this item? In the maritime provinces, as the minister knows, the birch trees are dying. Thousands and thousands of acres have been destroyed. I was wondering if that came under this item or under the Minister of Resources and Development.


James Garfield Gardiner: The same answer would be given as I gave a few moments ago in connection with the other matter. We do the technical investigation in connection with the matter. We have a team of men down in the maritimes now looking into the prevalence of the disease there, but the actual work in connection with it is done by the provinces.


Frank Thomas Stanfield: How long have the men
been down there?


James Garfield Gardiner: They have been there for
three years working on the matter.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Are they studying the disease in the birch trees known as dieback? I think that is what it is called.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what they are
considering.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Have the branches of this
department any buildings in, the different provinces? Are they working in conjunction with the universities, or not? I ask these questions because the university of New Brunswick has a large forestry school, which I think would be equipped to do work of this kind in conjunction with the federal government.


James Garfield Gardiner: At the university in
Fredericton we have a building which does take care of all of the activities in the mari-

times, and we are considering putting up another building at Debert this year.


John Lambert Gibson: Can the minister tell me
whether his department carries on the same work in forestry in British Columbia?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have a laboratory at
Victoria which does the same work in British Columbia. We carry on this end of the work right across the country.


John Lambert Gibson: I understand you have a boat out there as well.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Can the minister tell us the
areas in the maritime provinces in which work in connection with the disease of the birch trees is being carried on?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are working in the
northern part of New Brunswick, and the work that is carried on from that location also carries on into Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms service-
20. Experimental farms service administration, $162,185.
Frank Exton Lennard: In connection with the
central experimental farm, the minister may recall that some few years ago in this house when the former member for Wellington North, the late Dr. Blair, was a member, we sometimes had full dress debates on the Landrace hogs that are at the experimental farm. Great numbers of them are still there. I do not know why they are still experimenting with them, and that is the reason I have risen. The most popular hog in Canada today for general purposes and for bacon production is the Yorkshire. There are a considerable number of Yorkshires out at the experimental farm. They are not all the even type. As is well known amongst those who are producing hogs today, the large English white is apparently the coming hog, at least in central Canada. Just a few weeks ago I visited a farm near Milton owned by Mr. E. L. Taylor who has what is considered to be one of the best herds of hogs that I have ever seen. He has the best hogs that I have ever seen in any one spot in Canada, and I have seen a few. Why do they continue to experiment with some types of hogs, when I do not think there are many breeders in Canada who are taking advantage of those experiments-at least I have never seen any, in my travels. No publicity is given to it at the agricultural shows, and I have never seen any of those hogs at the shows. I realize of course that I have not seen all the shows across the country. However, I would ask the minister
Supply-Agriculture
to make a statement concerning the Landrace hogs, which have been at the central experimental farm for fifteen years at least. What headway is being made, and why are they being kept for experimentation if the desired results are not being obtained?


James Garfield Gardiner: There were Landrace hogs
at the experimental farm when I came to the department about sixteen years ago. It is not clearly within my memory when experiments were begun with them, but I do know they began in view of the fact that a similar hog is produced in Denmark. At that time the Danes would not permit any of the breeding stock to leave Denmark. We got these Swedish hogs, which are of a similar type, and brought them here for the purpose of satisfying some people, one of whom was an hon. member in the house at the time, who thought these hogs were particularly good.
They were brought here, and we carried on the breeding of them until such time as we were satisfied that they were not any improvement on our own Yorks. I recall dealing with the matter in the house, and pointing out that, in connection with the Landrace, the litters were smaller in number, but the pigs were larger when they came. But when we took the two facts into consideration, first that our litters were greater in number, when everything was taken into consideration the outcome of it all was that we thought our own Yorks suited our situation better.
I am told no more of the purebred Land-race are left, but that we have a hybrid which is a cross between the Chester white and the Landrace hog, and that experiments are still being carried on with it. It is not the purebred type we brought here, but a type having some of the characteristics of the Landrace.
I do not know that I can give any particular reason for continuing the experiments. It could happen that at some time we might be producing hogs for a different market, or a market different from that for which we have produced them over the years that have gone by. For that reason perhaps it might be well to continue the experimental work in connection with different types in case that, in certain sections of Canada, we might advise their production. However, I cannot give any better reason than that.


Frank Exton Lennard: I was out to the farm several weeks ago and saw what appeared to be a cross. They are a lop-eared hog, and look very much like the original Landrace.
Then I would draw to the minister's attention another point, namely, that most of the

Supply-Agriculture
pens in the hog barn are supplied with shavings litter. In my experience with suckling pigs the use of these shavings is dangerous. Many instances have been brought to my attention where little pigs got some of the shavings or sawdust in their intestines or stomachs, and that just about finishes them. I know of many cases where that has happened.
As this is more or less a model farm, and one to which there are many visitors, I suggest there should be straw litter. People go to the experimental farm to see what is done there, and then they return to their homes and follow that example. I feel that if they use these shavings it will lead to trouble.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am told we have not
had any experiences such as the hon. member has described. There is only one reason of course why they are using shavings. They would prefer to use straw, for a number of reasons, one of the chief ones being that mentioned by the hon. member. It is better to be doing at the experimental farm what the farmer should do at his own farm. We would prefer to have straw for bedding purposes for all the livestock; but I am told it is not possible, or that certainly it is very difficult to get straw for all the purposes for which it is used.
In any advice given to farmers it is always pointed out that straw can be more easily secured, on the ordinary farm, and that it is better to use it in any case because, first of all, it can be used more readily as manure than can the shavings. Advice is given out along those lines. But practical experience has been that they must have some bedding in the form of what is generally known as excelsior or shavings.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I looked at the hogs out there, and I wondered why they were being kept at all. I looked through the different litters and I did not see one of more than four or five. They may have been there, but I did not see them. The litters are uneven, and I thought it was poor production-very poor production. The quality of the hogs was poor. I do not know why they would want to continue to experiment with that kind of hog.


James Garfield Gardiner: It must be kept in mind that an experimental farm is operated for purposes somewhat different from those of the ordinary farm. Experiments are carried on, for example, in connection with inbreeding, and the results may be very bad. But it is done so that they may advise people to keep away from the very thing they are doing in their experimental work. It is carried on to demonstrate the actual results.

Perhaps that does not apply so much at the central farm as it does in some of the others. For instance, at Saskatoon the college is operated in connection with a sixteen-hundred acre farm. Provision is made there to bring in hogs from different farms throughout the area. They are all fed alike, and we indicate the results of the different types of breeding carried on by individual farmers. We show the results of feeding as applied to hogs bred in certain ways.
All that kind of work is carried on. One can go to the central farm and see pens of hogs he probably would not want to have on his own farm-but that is probably why they are there. They would be there to serve as an example, so that the farmer would know it would not be a good thing to have them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms service-
21. Central experimental farm, operation and! maintenance, $1,686,674.
A. Earl Catherwood: What experiments are being carried on in connection with the feeding of livestock, including hogs, at the central experimental farm? I believe it is doing an excellent job in developing new strains of grain and seed, but I do feel that in connection with the feeding of hogs, cattle, sheep and poultry not enough experimental work is being done. I feel that the farm should do more experimental work along these lines.


James Garfield Gardiner: We have certain livestock at the central experimental farm. We have Ayrshire and Holstein dairy cattle, and we also have Shorthorns. In this particular area we pay perhaps more attention to dairy farming, but experimental work is carried on to assist farmers in the matter of breeding. We do not do much artificial insemination as that is done at Kemptville by the provincial government. They have an experiment there which I have looked over on one or two occasions. It is getting good results and is of considerable assistance to the people of the area.
We also have hogs at the farm, as has been indicated by the previous discussion, and we advise with regard to breeding. We do not make a practice of putting out a considerable number of sires. On occasion we import livestock in order to improve the breed in the country generally. We place the sires that we import at different farms across the country, and some are placed here in Ottawa.


A. Earl Catherwood: I am thinking particularly of feeding and rations experiments

that might be carried on in an effort to find out what best results could be obtained. This is the type of work the farm could carry out most effectively and I wonder if the minister would just comment on what is being done.


James Garfield Gardiner: That type of experimental work is being carried out at all the experimental farms.


Frank Exton Lennard: Are any bulletins issued?


James Garfield Gardiner: Bulletins indicating the
progress reports are issued to all who write in for them.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I notice there are 506
employees at the farm and I was wondering what system they have to prevent people walking over one another.


James Garfield Gardiner: Five hundred and six may look like a large number, but when you see the buildings there and know the different purposes for which they are used you will understand that it is not. It is the headquarters for our experimental farm work right across the country and the staffs necessary to carry on that work at headquarters are here. A very considerable amount of experimental work is done which requires the employment of persons. One only has to go out there and see the number of people moving about to realize that there have to be quite a number of attendants to take care of the shrubbery, flowers, livestock and everything associated with the farm.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I happened to be there on one occasion last winter, on a rather cold day, and when I went into the horse barn I found quite a few of them asleep in a stall. I do not know whether they were being kepi there as surplus.


James Garfield Gardiner: It might all depend on
when you were out there. I recall as a boy that it was a custom on all farms, that is those on which I worked in Ontario, to have a nap in the straw in one of the stalls after you had had your lunch. There is irregular feeding to be carried on and some of those men may have been up at unusual hours. They may have done their work before most of us got up and were taking a nap in the middle of the day.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I would recommend that they do not let the public see them because it might create a wrong impression. I was not anxious to see them, but I could not help it.


A. Earl Catherwood: What was the revenue
last year from the central experimental farm?
Supply-Agriculture


James Garfield Gardiner: The revenue from all the
farms was $569,000 with $94,000 from the central experimental farm.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Following what has been
said by the hon. member for Queens I might remind him that there are 262 of us here in one room and we do not walk over each other although we may get in each other's hair once in a while.


An hon. Member:: If you have hair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the minister knows,
across the years I have been interested in the salaries paid to some of the people in his department, those with scientific training and holding university degrees as well as the labourers and workers generally. I am glad to note that the wages and salaries are a little better than they were a few years ago, but it seems to me that there is still room for improvement. I have in mind the still rising cost of living and I also have in mind the fact that the qualifications required of some of these people are pretty high.
I should like to ask the minister the duties and qualifications of two or three of the people covered by this item as indicated on page 89.
I note there an assistant technician at $1,560 per year. That sounds like a pretty small annual salary, although there may be some explanation.


James Garfield Gardiner: This assistant technician is not a university graduate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would hope not.


James Garfield Gardiner: I have never been ready to agree that a university graduate ought to get more than certain other people. The salary range here is $1,560 to $2,088. If this man is getting only $1,560 it would indicate that he is new on the staff and will gradually increase until he is receiving $2,088. The pay for all these positions is fixed right across the board in all departments. For similar work the pay is the same.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the minister might give me some information as to what this man does. I recognize that he is in a bracket that permits him to move up to the higher salary rate later on. But this year he is getting $1,560. What does he do for that?


James Garfield Gardiner: My officials sitting here do not know who the man is the hon. member is talking about. I do not know how he would expect me as minister to know. If he can tell me the name of the man he is talking about, we will try to find out what he does. This is the salary paid for that particular job, for a technician, grade 1. It is stated there, and it is said there is one of them.
3638	HOUSE OF
Supply-Agriculture


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the sort of thing that the Minister of Finance encourages us to get information about in committee of supply. The minister has so much information in front of him-


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact, to shorten the discussion, I am told1 there is nobody in the job at all. That is one reason why it has not gone up beyond $1,560.


Stanley Howard Knowles: These fellows over here are doing a lot of chattering, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: You have chattered all your life.


An hon. Member:: You are the greatest liability in this parliament.


An hon. Member:: Talk about chattering!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I point out to the minister and his rooting section over here that if they will look at page 89 of the estimates-and I hope each of them has a copy-they will find that in the year 1950-51 there was no request for this position at all. Similarly if they will look at the right-hand column they will find that no money was voted in 1950-51 for this position. This is a request for a new position at a salary of $1,560 for a job as assistant technician, grade 1. I think it is a perfectly reasonable question to ask what would be the duties of a person filling this position.


Mr. Boisvert:: Maybe it will be to read your speeches.


An hon. Member:: Open and shut the gate.


James Garfield Gardiner: As a matter of fact no information can be given with regard to the individual because he is not there. The process by which you get the position created is that you must take the matter before treasury board, which some people pass critical remarks about occasionally. I think I heard one last night from over in that corner.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Right.


James Garfield Gardiner: Treasury board has to agree that the position is necessary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then why did you ask for it?


James Garfield Gardiner: We asked for it because our people at the farm have made representations that this man will be needed during the coming year. New work will be commenced of one kind or another, and this man is not doing the kind of work which would be laid out or he would be getting a much higher salary. I have asked my officials if he feeds livestock, and they say that if he were feeding livestock he would get more money than that. In other words, he is not one of the highly paid necessary persons, 

but there are many people who are required to do other types of work. He would be one of the lowest paid persons out there. We have had the position set up because it is thought that another man is needed in that particular classification. We have asked for him. We have submitted to the treasury board all the reasons why we want him. We finally secured the right to hire him, but we have not hired him yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to make it clear that I did not rise in this discussion in any critical mood at all. As a matter of fact I think the minister recognized that when I started. He knows from what I have said about this item in former years that I am ready to back him up in trying to get better salaries for the people who work in the various branches of his department. When I started I did not know that there was no man drawing this salary, that this was just a request for a position that has not yet been filled. My purpose was to try to find out what the man was asked to do. I was sure that no matter what you asked him to do if you need him at all he should be paid more than $1,560 in this year 1951-52. I am rather surprised that I cannot get the information because the minister knows his department inside out. I am surprised that he has not got some sort of answer.


James Garfield Gardiner: I can give the hon. member some sort of answer if that is what he desires. The fact is-and I am not going to attempt to say that this applies to this individual case because there is no man in the position- that the kind of work which these men are called upon to do is usually part-time work. Perhaps we are doing some experimental work in connection with chemistry or some other pursuit, and during the summer months we may need a young lad or young person who is taking a course at one of the universities. We hire him to assist in this particular work. It is not a highly paid job. It is much in the same class as the boys who are taken from the engineering staffs and put out on road work, and that kind of thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the minister correctly described his answer before he gave it, namely, that it is some sort of answer.
I call his attention to the fact that further down in the list on page 89 there is an item for seasonal student assistants, so this man is hardly in that category. There is a special category for that type further down the page. There is a request for fourteen of them, and incidentally this also is a new item which was not in the list last year. I have no objection to the new item being added. I am not one of those fellows who are always saying: Cut down government expenditure.

I think the government should pay what these people have coming to them. This other item for fourteen seasonal student assistants works out to about $800 a year for each of them. If it is part-time summer work it is a lot more than the minister and I were able to get-


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not for a year's work. It is for part of the summer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -when we were going to university, but obviously the other man is not in that category.


James Garfield Gardiner: Just to make my answer as correct as it can be, that would not prevent us from hiring a student to do this other job. In the particular class to which you have referred we could not hire anybody else but students because it is so classified, but we can still hire a student to do the other job. We could hire any person who is capable of doing it.	.


John Lambert Gibson: He does not need to take it for that money.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When we come back to this matter next year I hope that the minister will have a report on who was hired for this position-


James Garfield Gardiner: If he is hired I will be able to tell you all about him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that only pays $1,560. I think he might also report to us on how he managed to keep body and soul together.


John Lambert Gibson: He does not have to take the job. It is a free country. There are lots of jobs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to point out as well, and the minister knows what my interest is-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that from a humanitarian point of view I want to see to it that these people are properly treated.


John Lambert Gibson: Six o'clock.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Before I call it six o'clock, may I refer to a ruling I made earlier during the course of the discussion on item 1. Looking at today's Hansard typescript, I see that when the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture the Minister of Agriculture said "ask it". I did not hear that. If I had I would not have made the ruling which followed. I should like to correct that.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
Private Bills AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



JOHN ATHERTON CRITCHLEY

Mr. Matthew MacLean (for Mr. Winkler) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 232, for the relief of John Atherton Critchley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the order for second reading of this bill was called the last time private bills were being considered, I asked that this one be allowed to stand. I did so because I had made a study of the *case, and I have studied it further since Tuesday evening. In fact, I feel that it is a bill which this house should not pass without further consideration. The evidence which we have received concerning this case is a bulky volume of eighty-six pages. As one who has read every page of it, I can say that it is not recommended reading. Indeed, I shall give the undertaking that I will not quote from this evidence in speaking to the bill now before the house.
I do want to say a few things about the case, and I want to offer a suggestion which I shall put in the form of an amendment to the motion for second reading. These two people were married quite some time ago, and lived together for a number of years, but in due course drifted apart. In the early years of their married life the husband appears to have left the wife on a number of occasions, particularly when she was ill. As a matter of fact, that statement is authenticated in a judgment of one of the courts of the province of Quebec, in connection with a separation granted to these two people in 1947. In his judgment the judge said:
. . . considering, moreover, that the proof establishes the defendant inexcusably neglected his wife during her frequent periods of illness . . .
I suggest that that fact be borne in mind, that a judge of one of the courts of the province of Quebec recognized that this man had inexcusably neglected his wife. I point out also that at one stage of the game this man sought to get an annulment of his marriage. I am not sure whether it was a civil court or a church court to which he applied for the annulment. I may say that the evidence seems to indicate this was a mixed marriage. But at any rate the request of the husband for an annulment of the marriage was declined.
I ask the house to note that, after that bit of background, it is the husband who is applying to the parliament of Canada for a

Private Bills
divorce from his wife. He is charging her with adultery. Indeed, in his petition to the Senate of Canada he names two other men as co-respondents. There are matters of detail in connection with that charge that have a bearing on the case, but I do not wish to go into any great detail because it makes a lurid story, the kind which I do not think should be recited in this House of Commons. Indeed, cases of this kind convince me more than ever that we should not be dealing with these matters at all. They should be before an appropriate court of justice.
There is one other important element in this case, and that is that at the time that the separation was granted by a Quebec court the husband was ordered to pay the wife *the sum of $25 per week for her maintenance and support. The evidence seems to indicate that that order had been carried out, and is still being carried out, by the husband. However, it also seems clear that if this divorce is granted he will no longer be under a legal obligation to pay that money. The woman will no longer be his wife, so he will no longer be liable for her support and maintenance. I understand there is that difference between a court order for money to be paid to a wife and a court order for money to be paid to the children. In the latter case, the order still holds even after a divorce. In this case, I understand that if the husband gets the divorce he is free of the legal obligation to continue to pay the $25 per week to his wife.
It may be said that that is the reason the woman is contesting the case. I want to say that when one reads the evidence, he does not feel that the misconduct is all on one side. In my opinion, there is misconduct on both sides. At any rate, the position of the woman is quite clear, that if this divorce is granted she will be without any guaranteed means of support. The evidence seems to indicate that she is in poor health-indeed, she had been for a number of years prior to the separation which was granted by a Quebec court. As I have already said, the Quebec judge drew particular attention to that fact. I may say that I have had some correspondence about this case. I understand it is the intention of the woman to continue contesting it as long as it is possible to do so. I understand from the correspondence I have had concerning this case that the lawyer for the man made a promise, if I might call it that, to the members of the Senate committee to the effect that after the divorce went through his client would continue to provide for the support and maintenance of the wife. I am told, however, that the lawyer for the woman has tried to get the

man to sign a document to that effect and that he has refused to do so. Maybe there are good reasons why he should make that refusal. Nevertheless, it leaves the woman in the position that, if the divorce is granted, she will have no guarantee that her former husband will be required to support her. He may continue to do so, in keeping with the promise that his lawyer appears to have made to members of the Senate committee. But of course the Senate committee could not hold him to that commitment and he will be under no legal obligation.
In view of all the circumstances, and in view of the fact that the case exercised the Senate committee to the extent of eighty-six pages of printed evidence, I certainly feel that we must give the case fairly close consideration in this house. As to the evidence of adultery itself, I think that anyone who would take the time to read this volume would admit that it is inconclusive and contradictory. I for one cannot say whether or not the alleged adultery took place; and on the basis of the evidence, I would not be prepared to take a position one way or the other. In the light of all that, I feel that further consideration must be given to this case.
It might be pointed out to me that that is what happens when the House of Commons gives second reading to a bill of this kind and subsequently refers it to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, namely that that committee does the job of so-called careful consideration. We know that that committee passes in batches bills that are uncontested. It so happens, of course, that this case is likely to be contested before that committee. I understand that the practice of that committee is that, when a case is contested, it is singled out and those who wish to appear are permitted to do so. I believe that the respondent and her lawyer intend to appear before that committee.
Some hon. members might say to me: Well, since that is the practice of the committee, what are you worrying about? Why do you not just let this bill have second reading, let it go to that committee and let them consider it? I wish to answer that argument by reminding hon. members that the practice is almost invariable that a bill that gets second reading from the house is passed by the committee to which it is referred. It goes to the committee with the approval of the principle of the bill, and that fact is brought to the attention of the committee by those who want to see it get through. In other words, the chances of such a bill being defeated in a committee-as will

be seen if one looks at the practices of this committee and the house-are	indeed
extremely slender. I therefore feel that instead of sending this bill to the committee, with the approval that it would have if we gave it second reading, we should1 not now give this bill its second reading but that we should rather send the subject matter of the bill to the committee. If we do that, we will be giving the man, the petitioner, his right to appear before that committee along with his lawyer, and to try to persuade that committee to recommend that the bill be reintroduced.
I suggest that that procedure is fairer to the man himself than it would be if we were simply to vote against second reading and kill the bill. If, without any intermediate opportunity for further inquiry, I had to make the choice between passing or opposing this bill, I would oppose it. Hon. members know that I have said that despite my dislike for the way in which we deal with divorce in this house-it is my feeling that we should not be dealing with it here at all- I have taken the position that in the absence of any clear case against a bill, we should vote for it; and every time there has been a vote on a divorce bill I have voted for it.
But as I say, I have made a careful study of this case; and although I do not see tremendous virtue oh either side, I for one feel that we would not be properly exercising our function as a judicial body if we were to pass this bill as it now stands. But as I said, although I would take that stand, I feel that we must be fair to both sides. We would be doing what the wife wants if we defeated the bill. But the man might say: Well, not many members of the House of Commons studied this case; only two or three of them did so; and no one there stated my side of it. All right. We will give the man his chance to state his side of the case if we send to the committee the subject matter of the bill.
The difference between sending the bill itself and the subject matter, as I have already pointed out, is well known to hon. members. If we send the bill, it already has House of Commons approval and the chances are a thousand to one that the committee will pass it. But if we send not the bill but the subject matter, the committee must start from scratch. The bill itself is dead at that point. It can come back into the house, but only on the basis of the committee's recommending that the bill be reintroduced. That can be done. If the man and his lawyer can persuade the standing committee on miscellaneous
Private Bills
private bills that that should be done, when it comes back to the house I will accept their judgment.
Someone may say: Why do you not accept the judgment of the members of the committee of the other place? I have respect for what they have done. From my study of this case I feel that they have gone into it carefully. I sense a deep concern on their part for the livelihood of this woman. That aspect comes out several times in questions that hon. senators asked. But even so, even though I respect the thorough and judicial job that was done by the committee of the other place, as a member of the House of Commons I feel that I have a right to ask that the committee of this house go into this bill. After all we are, in a sense, a court of two hundred and sixty-two judges being called upon to pass upon this matter. Surely the least we should do is to have our own committee which deals with these matters go into this case thoroughly.
At the risk of repeating myself, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make the point that it is not satisfactory to me to give this bill second reading and to send it to the committee. That procedure makes its approval by the committee almost a foregone conclusion. Under that circumstance the woman and her lawyer could appear before that committee, but their chances of getting the committee to upset the bill would be extremely slim. If, however, we send to the committee the subject matter of the bill rather than the bill itself, the man and his lawyer can appear, as well as the woman and her lawyer, and they are on a more equal footing. The man has the chance, if he can prove to that committee that he has a case, to persuade them to recommend the reintroduction of the bill. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we must look at this thing in a judicial capacity as best we can. We must assess the evidence that is given to us and try to decide who is right and who is wrong. That is extremely difficult to do on the basis of contradictory and inconclusive evidence.
One feels doubt about several of the witnesses that appeared, as to their credibility, but despite that, I look at these two parties, neither of whom I know or have ever met, and I say to myself: If we approve the divorce, that is the end of the marriage, and that may be the end of $25 a week that the woman gets to live on. She is in her fifties; she is in poor health. Therefore if we take that course we may be making a mistake that we cannot repair. Do we do a wrong to the man if we deny the divorce, or if we require him to appear before a

Private Bills
committee of this house to prove his case? I think not. He has a separation now. He is not being forced to live with this woman whom he no longer loves. The most that we do by way of penalizing him is to prevent him from having the opportunity to remarry. There is no indication in the evidence, at any rate, that that is the purpose of this petition.
Someone might say: we do him the wrong of forcing him to continue to pay that $25 a week. He has said to the Senate committee that he is prepared to support his wife. If he feels he should not be so obligated all he has to do is to apply again to the courts of Quebec for a reconsideration of the court order that was made in 1947. So, all things considered, I think the fair, most objective, most judicial thing that this house can do is to deny this bill its second reading at this time-I emphasize the words "at this time"-and instead to refer its subject matter to our committee so that it can be discussed there.
There are few cases that I have read this session, and I have read a good many of them., that are as replete as this one is with the sort of evidence that one does not want to quote; so I have kept strictly away from that and I have tried to discuss this case in as dignified a way as I could in view of its nature. I have tried to be fair with it in my own mind and in my presentation of it, and I say to the house quite sincerely that I think my suggestion is the one that the house should follow.
If I were asking the house to vote against this bill and kill it, someone might say: You are unfair to the man. All right; I am asking the house to ask our committee to give it further consideration, but to give it consideration in such a manner that the man and woman will both appear before that committee on an equal footing, and have a chance to start from scratch before a committee of this house. Therefore, Mr. Speaker,-


William F. Carroll: May I ask the hon. gentleman one or two questions?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


William F. Carroll: The first question is:	Does
he feel that there is not that abundance of evidence in favour of the petitioner that is required in order to over-balance her evidence; that is, if the hon. gentleman were trying this case himself would he feel convinced that the petitioner had proved his case? The next question is this-he made some suggestion as to both parties being guilty:	Is there evidence indicating that the
husband himself in this case was guilty of

adultery? The third question is:	Is there
evidence there which would indicate that there was connivance by the husband in this case? The reason I am asking these questions is that I know the hon. gentleman has given the matter serious consideration. In any matter to which he does give consideration he has a full and perfect grasp of the situation. If these questions were to be answered by the hon. gentleman in the affirmative then I would think that his proper motion would be to give this bill the six months hoist.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the hon. member
for Inverness-Richmond for the honour he has done me in putting these questions to me. In answer to his first question I may say that I am not satisfied there is abundance of evidence in favour of the petitioner. If the hon. member had asked me the opposite question, is there abundance of evidence in favour of the wife's innocence of misconduct I would have to give the same answer. When I was speaking I used the words:	"Inconclusive and contradictory."
That is my summing up of the evidence on the matter.
The hon. member for Inverness-Richmond asked me whether there was anything in the evidence to indicate that the husband had also been guilty of adultery. I do not know whether it is proper to put the answer as yes and no, but I am not a lawyer, so perhaps my hon. friend will permit me to put it that way-


An hon. Member:: What does it matter?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The evidence records an
attempt on the part of counsel for the respondent to indicate that there had been adultery or misconduct on the part of the husband, but because of the way in which the pleading had been drafted, or whatever the legal phrase is, the lawyers in charge of the Senate committee felt that they could not admit that evidence. That is the reason I say yes and no. From the few sentences that appear here and there, and from the objection taken by counsel for the petitioner to these questions and to that evidence, it looks to me as though there is something there. I have in mind also the fact that a judge of a Quebec court ruled that he inexcusably neglected his wife. The evidence does not prove categorically that he was guilty of misconduct, but the evidence does suggest it.
As to the third question, does the evidence suggest to me that there was connivance between husband and wife, I think my answer to that would be that the evidence does not suggest it.


William F. Carroll: Was there connivance by the husband, any evidence to indicate connivance by the husband; that is, that he was giving this woman an opportunity, or not doing the proper thing to avoid giving her an opportunity of the offence for which she is charged?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No; I am sorry. These words are such that even lawyers get mixed up in them, and I misinterpreted the use of the word "connivance". I would not say there was any evidence of connivance on the husband's part. If the woman is guilty of the misconduct of which she is charged she is guilty of it on her own initiative, but she denies it categorically under oath. One of the men with whom she is charged as having committed adultery also denies it under oath. He is a man much younger than she is. The other man is now dead, so he was not here to give any evidence.
I thank the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond for putting the questions to me that he did. His experience in these matters because of his former position as a judge, and as one who has had to try divorce cases, and the questions that he has put to me have helped to clear up these matters. On the basis of all this, Mr. Speaker, I feel, as I have already said, that we should not now give this bill second reading. On the other hand, despite the suggestion of the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond, I think that both parties should have a chance to appear before our committee. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis):
That Bill No. 232 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to add much to what has been said already toy the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He has made the reason for the amendment quite clear. Some years ago I instructed the post office to put neither these bills nor the evidence connected with them in my drawer, with the result that ever since I have been reading neither the bills nor the evidence.
I do not claim any virtue for that, because these bills, coming before the house, make the demand upon me that I shall either support or oppose them. In such circumstances the evidence should have been read, but in view of the way in which they were dealt with in this house, it was quite useless for me or any other member to waste time reading the evidence.
However, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked me to read the evidence
Private Bills
in this case, not with a view to speaking to the bill in the house, but so that after I had read it he might have my opinion as to whether the petitioner had made out his case. I have read the evidence, and I must say I have come to the same conclusion as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I would say that in my opinion the petitioner has not made out his case to my satisfaction; and if I have to vote tonight either for the bill or against it, I shall vote against it. I shall do so despite the fact that a few evenings ago I said that I would support any divorce bill which came properly to this house from the other place. I believe in this case however that the evidence is not conclusive.
May I also stress the fact that when the petitioner, the husband, tried to get an annulment of his marriage, his petition at that time was refused. When the separation took place, it was as a result of application made by the wife.
In my opinion the husband is a pretty despicable character, and this fact is borne out by the castigation given him by the judge at the time the separation was made. It was said at that time that he neglected his wife, even on occasions when she was ill. I would urge hon. members therefore to support the amendment. The only harm that can be done to the petitioner is that his bill for divorce, if it finally carries, may be delayed for a short time. Otherwise he has all the rights he had previously. As a matter of fact, if the amendment carries the case will be in the same position as when a decision in a lower court is appealed to a higher court for consideration.
For these reasons I would urge hon. members on this occasion to vote in favour of sending the subject matter of this bill to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Mr. MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria), for Mr. Winkler, has moved the second reading of divorce bill 232, for the relief of John Atherton Critchley. To this Mr. Knowles has moved an amendment, seconded toy Mr. Maclnnis, that the bill be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
Those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed?


An hon. Member:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
3644	HOUSE OF
Champion Pipe Line Corporation

Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 321, to incorporate Champion Pipe Line Corporation Limited. He said: '
Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 321 is to incorporate Champion Pipe Line Corporation Limited, under the general terms of the pipe lines legislation enacted by the house.
The object of the bill is to construct a pipe line to carry gas from the Alberta fields to Vancouver, British Columbia. The incorporators are set out in the bill, and they will be the first directors. I should point out that they are all prominent Canadians, and are well known probably to most of us.
The powers are set out in particular in section 6 of the bill, and with permission of the house I should like to read only lines 32, 33 and 34, which state:
-provided that the main pipe line or lines for the transmission and transportation of gas and oil shall be located entirely within Canada.
I am sure the proposed route will be of interest to hon. members from the west. It runs from Edmonton to Calgary, Pincher Creek, Crowsnest, Michel, Natal, McGilli-vray, Fernie, Cranbrook, with a spur to Kimberley, Creston, Sirdar, Kootenay lake, Salmo, Ymir, Cascade, Grand Forks, Simil-kameen, Cawston, Princeton and Hope, where the line will join the Fraser valley and proceed by the Fraser valley to Vancouver.
The safeguards surrounding this legislation are, of course, well known to the house; so that at this late stage I do not think I need go into them. Suffice it to say that if this bill is referred to the committee which will examine it in detail, we will have our experts there, the engineers and others, and be in a position to give the committee full details on any questions that may be raised. In seeking this incorporation we are merely acting under the legislation provided by this parliament; and if it is your pleasure we hope eventually to have the right to compete with the other companies which have obtained similar bills, under similar provisions and conditions.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to say a very few words in support of this bill. I do so because the applicants for this charter propose to follow what we may call a Canada-first route from the province of Alberta to Vancouver on the Pacific coast.
I believe those of us who opposed applications for other charters where the route was to go at least in part through the United States will support an application such as that now before us.


As the sponsor has pointed out, several groups have now obtained charters who propose to build a pipe line to the west coast by an all-Canadian route, so the fear expressed during the debates last year that there might be a monopoly no longer exists. There are now several companies from which to choose, and most of them propose to build through Canada. It is agreed, I think, that at least in the near future there will be only one oil line and one gas line to the west coast.
I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house, that there has been a great change this year in the attitude adopted toward these applications for a pipe line charter. The standing committee of this house on railways, canals and telegraph lines has written into three charters amendments similar to the wording read by the sponsor a few moments ago, providing that the main pipe line must be located entirely within Canada. Then one group applying for incorporation under the name Independent Pipe Line Company actually brought their bill to the other place with those words written in. Tonight we are considering a charter which was similarly amended in the other place. For the first time the Senate has written into one of these bills words which provide that the main pipe line must be located entirely within Canada. As a matter of fact there is only one pipe line bill before the house at the present time which does not meet that requirement. The bill to which I refer is-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might leave that until a later time.


Howard Charles Green: Well, I think I am entitled to mention that the name of the company concerned is the Border Pipeline Corporation. This change in attitude is very significant, and I believe it is in line with the beliefs and interests of the Canadian people.
Pipe line bills passed in earlier sessions did not contain this Canada-first provision, though in some cases the sponsors pledged themselves to follow an all-Canadian route. There were sponsors of other bills, of course, who did not do so, notably the Alberta Natural Gas Company and Prairie Trans-misision Lines Limited.
I trust that when the board of transport commissioners come to deal with an application for the right to lay a pipe line they will take notice of this changed attitude which certainly exists in this house and I believe also in the other place, and will grant a permit only for a Canada-first route.

Certainly there is no excuse for the board of transport commissioners to follow any other course.
The same is true of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), to whom a company must apply for permission to export oil or gas to the United States. I hope he too will take note of the changed attitude this year and will refuse to grant any company permission to export oil or gas from Canada unless the main pipe line of that company is laid in Canadian soil.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I should like to say a few words on this bill to incorporate Champion Pipe Line Corporation Limited. I believe the sponsor is to be congratulated on bringing this bill before the house. I wish also to express my appreciation to the men who are behind the application to incorporate this company, namely Lloyd Rogers Champion, financier, of the city of Montreal; Leslie Mendelssohn Cuthbert St. Bendick Collins, executive, of Toronto; Daniel Roland Michener, barrister and king's counsel, of the city of Toronto; Alfred Theodore Hurter, engineer, of the city of Montreal; and Joseph Theophile Wilfrid Gagnon, industrialist, of the city of Montreal. These men are showing that they have faith in an all-Canadian line. They are willing to provide financial backing for this project, which shows that they believe in developing Canada for Canadians first.
On Tuesday, March 20, I took part in a pipe line debate in this house. Since then I have spoken to many Canadians, who I found had the idea that if these various pipe lines went from Canada to the United States and then back to Vancouver, then Vancouver would not be a very thriving city in the years to come. Once more I wish to express my appreciation of the action of these people who have the interests of Canada at heart and the ability to go ahead with a matter of this kind.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I very seldom say anything in connection with pipe lines, but I drove 125 miles from Chalk River in order to be here this evening to congratulate the sponsor of this bill. Those of us who have taken some slight interest in the all-Canadian route over the last two or three years are very proud of the fact that we have been able to convince not only this sponsor but one other sponsor that we should in fact build Canada first. We now have the financial giants of Montreal appreciating the fact that Canada alone should be built before we help develop any other country, no matter how friendly that country may be. I only hope when the Border Pipeline bill comes up-
Champion Pipe Line Corporation


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to discuss this bill and no other.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am glad you corrected me in that, Mr. Speaker.
I hope that in the future some of my colleagues from western Canada particularly will appreciate the fact that a few of us at least are trying to develop Canada and especially our own province of British Columbia. We want to develop northern Alberta.
I am sure they will agree with us eventually and see the light. I am certainly not going to delay this bill. I am watching the clock.
I was talking the last time with one of my colleagues from my own province, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) about public ownership. I drove 125 miles today and back again to see an example of what public ownership can and cannot do. We have an example of public ownership right in our own building. I refer to our restaurant cafeteria. If they are not an example of why we should have private enterprise I do not know what is. At Chalk River we saw a most excellent cafeteria run economically and efficiently. I cannot say the same for all public ownership cafeterias.


James Sinclair: How were the prices?


George Alexander Cruickshank: The prices were a lot lower than we pay in this building. I will have something more to say about that later at the proper time, but I wanted to prepare the way just as a few of us prepared the way before today in the matter of transportation.


James Sinclair: Nine o'clock.


George Alexander Cruickshank: My colleague, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair), says "nine o'clock". It takes only a minute to say "nine o'clock". At a later date I will be delighted if the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, who comes from the same province as I do, will take forty minutes to explain that it is not yet nine o'clock, but if he, with us, wants to develop our own province and the prosperity of Canada as a whole, we will give him every opportunity to do so.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Where is British Columbia?


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You are talking it out.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am definitely not
talking it out, but I would just as soon that no more divorces came up this evening, and it is not yet nine o'clock.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Tell us where British
Columbia is.


George Alexander Cruickshank: You know, Mr. Speaker, I am getting advice from all around here.


James Sinclair: You need it.

Private Bills


George Alexander Cruickshank: My friend, the hon.
member for Coast-Capilano, says that I need it. Again I repeat to him what a golden opportunity he has to make a name for himself and develop his own country in the same way that his colleagues from the ridings surrounding his own are trying to develop our own ridings, our own province and to raise his riding up to the same level of prosperity in spite of him.


Mr. Laing:: Great corn.


George Alexander Cruickshank: The hon. member for
Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) interjects "great corn". He too will be given a golden opportunity in the future to tell why these ether lines are going to be all-Canadian just as we gave the company he sponsored the opportunity of doing the same thing. Since then I have yet to hear him raise his voice above a whisper, or even to a whisper, in support of an all-Canadian route. He has a golden opportunity to do so. For three years some of us have been trying to build Canada and our own province by conserving the great gas and oil resources of our sister province of Alberta, and to develop oil and gas in northern British Columbia so that the finances of our province may be in the same splendid condition as those of Alberta. We have told Alberta that we have a great outlet in the Pacific coast market. This is of particular importance because in spite of objection we will develop the city of north Vancouver without any assistance if necessary in order that it may compete with its great neighbour on the other side of Burrard inlet. I congratulate the sponsor once more and I hope the bill has speedy passage through the committee and through the house.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: I
wish to express my support of this bill. We have opposed other bills and will continue to oppose those that do not accept an allCanadian route. I might say that the hon. member for Fraser Valley did not leave me any time to answer his argument with respect to public ownership. I want him to understand, however, that not only this group supports the principle of public ownership, but in this matter we have the gallant support of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson). We are very pleased that the bill includes an all-Canadian route and that it will pass through the southern part of British Columbia. It has our hearty support.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
Mr. Speaker:: Does the house wish to call it nine o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.



SECOND READING


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Jane Stirling Stephens.-Mr. Winkler.

Matthew MacLean: the second reading of Bill No. 324, for the relief of Mavis Elizabeth Thomas Wrathall.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that
the evidence with respect to Bill No. 324 has not yet reached our desks. At least it has not reached mine. I would submit that this case should stand. That will apply also to Bill No. 325.


Mr. Speaker:: Bill No. 324 will stand and
also Bill No. 325.
It being nine o'clock, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.

The house resumed in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Central experimental farm-
21. Operation and maintenance, $1,686,674.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Before this item passes I
wish to get back in the good graces of some of those about whom I made a few remarks that they may not have liked. I was speaking as the result of a visit I had made to the farm. That is the reason I spoke as I did, and not to be detrimental to the people at the farm. I want to say that the experimental farm is one of the finest beauty spots in this beautiful city of Ottawa. It is a place where visitors and tourists should be taken because nowhere in America will you find another spot as beautiful as the central experimental farm at Ottawa. It is doubtful whether you could find another in America to surpass it. I want to say that in favour of our experimental farm.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Branch farms and stations and illustration stations-* 23. Operation and maintenance, $4,682,078.
A. Earl Catherwood: Were any new illustration stations set up during the past year?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, there were some set up this year. I am sorry that the list which is here does * not give the dates when they were set up. There was one in British Columbia, and there are some others that were set up. I do not know that I can get the information within a short time.


A. Earl Catherwood: Could the minister get that information later?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Mr. Applewhaile:: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three questions to ask on this item. Last year a small illustration station was established at Terrace, B.C. How much money was expended last year, and how much is it estimated will be spent on it this year? Before the minister answers, I may explain that, owing to some circumstances which were largely beyond the control of the department or its officials, the residents in that area, who had hoped for quite a little as a result of the establishment of the station, were to some extent disappointed. This was partly due to the fact that this was the first year of operation, and to other circumstances that the department could not control. I hope that we may have some reason to believe there will be a more satisfactory record established at that little illustration station this year. It is for that reason that I ask that these figures be given.


Mr. Thomas:: I should like to ask the minister about the Lacombe, Alberta, experimental farm. Could the minister tell me the cost of operation for the past year, and the revenue derived from it, as well as the number of employees and the total payroll for that particular farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: I shall answer the question about the Terrace illustration station. It was established in the spring of 1950. The operator is Mr. Peter van Stolk. The agreement is to end with the 1953 crop year. It is renewable. One of the first undertakings will be to investigate the possibilities of tree fruit production, including the adoption of hardy fruits and improvements in spraying, and so on. The fruit industry has not done well in this district in the past, and we have been asked to explore the problems associated with horticulture, fruit and vegetable growing; soil building will be featured. Approximately $400 was spent on this station in 1950, mostly in connection with organization of work and supervision.
Since this station was only established in the spring of 1950, the planting of tree fruits and the establishment of the vegetable experimental products will be undertaken in the season of 1951. It is expected approximately $1,000 will be spent on the work planned for this station for this year. There are approximately twelve acres of
Supply-Agriculture
land. This is $5 per acre, including the use of land and services. The department supplies seed and trees on this property. In other words, the property is operated under practices recommended by this department.
At the Lacombe, Alberta, station, the staff is 48 and the earnings amount to $25,000.


Ray Thomas: What were the expenditures?


James Garfield Gardiner: The appropriation is $169,000 for this year, and that will be somewhere approaching the expenditure.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is the cost of these experimental farms borne entirely by the federal government? If so, what co-operation is there between the federal government and the local government in connection with these farms? We know that each province has different problems, and I was wondering just what liaison there was between the federal government and the provincial governments concerning the work at these experimental farms?


James Garfield Gardiner: The costs are borne by the federal government, but we do co-operate with the provinces in connection with soil surveys and many other activities. The results of any experimental work which is done are made available to the provincial authorities if they desire to have them. We do co-operate with them, and they co-operate with us in every possible way in making the results of the work at these farms available to farmers in general.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I know that, but there are schools conducted at the different experimental farms. I believe the provincial governments select the candidates, and I am asking the minister what connection there is there?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is not customary to conduct what are generally known as schools at the dominion farms. The farm at Guelph, for example, is known as an experimental farm, but that is run entirely by the province. The province does run an agricultural college along with it. The same thing is true of Saskatchewan, and I think most of the provinces. They have a farm, and there is an agricultural college in connection with it. The farm is operated in much the same manner as our experimental farms, and for very much the same purpose.
We do have what we might call extension classes that are held in connection with these illustration stations that we have. Our cereals man goes out and holds classes. The people around that community gather in and follow him about from plot to plot, while he gives them lectures on the results of the work that has been carried on.

Supply-Agriculture


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There was a school conducted by the provincial government in my town of Sussex. Last season it was moved to the experimental farm in Fredericton. I was wondering what the connection was, and why it was moved from Sussex to Fredericton?


James Garfield Gardiner: The school at Fredericton- I have forgotten some of the details concerning how it was established in the first place, but there were peculiarities about the establishment of it. While that school is operated on the experimental farm, it is operated by the province. If any students were transferred from another school to that one, it would be a provincial school. We do not operate that school. The building was burned down in which it was operating, and we are being asked to build another one so that the school can be continued. That matter is under consideration.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say a word or two on behalf of some members of the departmental staff whose excellent work goes unsung to a great extent because it is not spectacular. I refer particularly to the work of the officials at the Summerland experimental station. It is greatly appreciated by the fruit growers of the interior of British Columbia and by the farmers in general. I am not going to take time to detail the many experiments that have been carried on successfully. I am sure that the minister and his officials know about them. But we greatly appreciate the close attention being given to the problems of the fruit industry and to those of the farmers generally throughout the interior.
I want to make one suggestion, namely, that the . department every year make provision for some of the officials at these stations to visit particularly some of the isolated communities whose people are not as well informed of their work as are those in the larger centres, or those growing fruit in the larger fruit-growing areas. These officials are welcome at all times at meetings of the farmers organizations. I have been particularly asked to say that by the West Kootenay and Boundary Farmers Institutes central organization and also fruit organizations. I hope that financial provision will be made for occasional visits of these officials to farmers meetings and to individual farmers and fruit, growers throughout the district, wherever possible.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am highly pleased to have the hon. member make that statement, more particular because it is a fact that it was the officials at the Summerland farm who taught me the value of apple juice.


Ray Thomas: The minister says that the contemplated expenditure-that is, the estimate-for this year at Lacombe experimental farm is $169,000. Is that for operation and maintenance, or are they contemplating some extension of service or extension of buildings on that farm?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is not for any extension of the buildings. It is for operational costs; and it is a little bit larger than previously.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: At Charlottetown, is the science service department under the control of that station, or is it under the control of the experimental farm in Ottawa or of the Department of Agriculture itself?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are science service and experimental farms service, and they are both under our control.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: They are not under the control of the station?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are located at the experimental farm.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Production service-
25.	Production service administration, $58,154.
John Horne Blackmore: I believe item 25 was the
one under which the minister suggested it would be appropriate for him to give an account of the prices received by wheat growers for their production in 1942, 1943 and 1944 and of the costs of production Which prevailed during those three years. I found the discussion interesting a while ago, because the minister indicated to the committee that those three years were taken as a sort of base period by which to judge the prosperity of the wheat farmers.


James Garfield Gardiner: The price of wheat for the year 1942-43 averaged 94-7 cents; the price for 1943-44 averaged $1-233; and the price for 1944-45 averaged $1.25. Those are the average prices for the twelve-month period for those three years. As I said, that is the basis from which we would start to estimate what the returns should be now.
Under the document which is published from year to year by the statistics department, the net returns for wheat are given. I do not know whether I can locate the item. I have it here somewhere. I am afraid that I have not here the figures for the various farm items set out in the form and which would make it possible to make a calculation as between the two. The figures are, however, available in the larger publication that we get out, indicating what the net

return for each farm product is. Those are the figures which we use in establishing our relationship between the two when we are considering what the return ought to be. It was on that basis that we figured that what is generally called the parity price as based upon the 1926-29 period was $1.40 at one particular time. Now it would be considerably higher than that.


Victor Quelch: Has the minister the figures with regard to the cost of living during those three years? They were down fairly low.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry to say that I have not the cost of living figures for that period.


John Horne Blackmore: Has the minister the cost
of production during those three years? While the cost of production and the cost of living more or less merge, nevertheless they are different. As the minister knows, the cost of production depends to a large extent on the cost of the machinery that is to be used, twine, oil, gasoline and all that kind of thing. In addition to that, of course the cost of living as such-the cost of clothing, food and the like-enters into the cost of production. But it would seem to me that some formula must be devised whereby allowance would be made for the cost of all three factors-the amount that is received, the actual cost of production and the cost of living- before you can use the three-year period as a criterion. It seems to me that the freight rates ought to be counted in also as well as the structure of taxation which is being levied against the farmers. Has the minister anything concrete to give the committee in respect to this?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry again to have to suggest to the hon. member that he delay the discussion, blit the detail that he is asking for can be obtained only through the board that is set up under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, and that is item 51. I have just made inquiries and I find that our officials who would have any information that is available on that are not here at the moment, and if we could leave the discussion of that detail until we get down to that item it would be more satisfactory.


John Horne Blackmore: Does the minister desire to let this item stand?


James Garfield Gardiner: No; really what the hon. member is asking me for comes under item 51. He is asking me what the results of the activities of the prices board are. If tfiat is the information that is wanted I can get it more readily under item 51.
80709-232J
Supply-A griculture


John Horne Blackmore: The minister very well knows that some members, such as some of our admirable friends from the maritimes, and some from Ontario, fail to understand the problems with which the western wheat growers are confronted unless they do have some information pertaining to all such matters as these. There have been so many misconceptions in the country by reason of pictures of the wheat farmers rolling in wealth and going to California, Florida and elsewhere, that a great many people have an idea that the western wheat grower must be living at least on the standard of a king. The only way we can get to understand the real facts is through arriving at some basis of computation. We listened to individual after individual-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps the hon. member misunderstood what the minister said. The minister said that the information that the hon. member asked for could be supplied on item 51. I understood that the discussion should take place then and not now.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps I am suggesting too much when I say that the information he has asked for can be obtained then. Wheat does not come under this board. At that time at least we can give him the methods by which we do deal with the products that do come under the board, and the method will be the same in connection with wheat. Whether I can give him all the detail he is asking for I am not sure.


John Horne Blackmore: The only reason I was continuing was that I wanted to give the minister some idea as to what I should like to have.


Percy Ellis Wright: Is the department taking any special steps to encourage the increased production of dairy products or meat products?' It would look as though our dairy farmers; are not producing enough of them, or at least of some of them to meet our own requirements. Certainly the price of meat to the consumer at the present time is high, and our production is not increasing. Is the department taking any special steps to increase production? If so, what are these steps?


James Garfield Gardiner: The activities of the department up to very recently have been activities with regard to the disposal of the product.. We have had production which has beeni very far beyond the consumption within this country with regard to most dairy products, and also with regard to most meat products. But during the last three or four years that
3650	HOUSE OF
Supp ly-A gricu Iture
picture has changed considerably, and it is scarcely correct even now to say that we have not sufficient of these products to supply our own needs. Last year we had about 40 million pounds more cheese than our own needs, and we had sufficient of all of the other dairy products to supply our own needs. The only product that we are not desirous of having produced in greater quantity than we could dispose of if we were trying to sell it outside is butter, and the chief reason why we do not suggest that our people should produce more butter than they can consume is that there is no place that we could sell it at cost of production. We must sell our butter in Canada if we are going to sell it at cost of production, the reason being that it costs more to produce butter in this country than it does anywhere else in the world where it is produced in great quantities, and if anybody is going to eat it, then our Canadian people must eat it. Therefore we have been attempting over the years to keep our production of butter just at the consumption point, and we have been fairly successful in that. We have not imported much butter and we have not exported much over the years. When we are just on balance with our production so that production meets the demand in the country, that is just where we want to be; so that we do not ask them to produce any more.
When it comes to fluid milk, of course it is much the same position; that is, the fluid milk is consumed in Canada. Butter accounts for almost 50 per cent of all the milk that is produced in Canada. The next greatest amount that has to be accounted for is the fluid milk. Between the two of them they take up the greater part of the milk production. After that we put the surplus which is left over into cheese, ice cream and canned milk of one kind and another, and into powdered milk. So far as all these commodities are concerned1, we have sufficient for our own needs, and fortunately for us at the present time we are able to consume the greater part of them in this country.
When it comes to meat products, which were mentioned as well, we eat all the pork that we produce at present. We do not eat anything like all the beef that we produce. A very considerable part of our beef goes to the United States, but the other products are being largely consumed in this country, and the price which is being obtained for them does not suggest to our people that they could gain very much by producing say 5 per cent or 10 per cent more and shipping it out. There is not much inclination on the part of our producers to want to get into that position. They are producing what can be marketed in


this country and what can be marketed in the United States at a better price in some cases than can be obtained here, and I do not know of any way in which you could encourage them to do differently. I do not know that we want to encourage them to do differently from what they are doing.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the minister consider it appropriate to discuss the question of fertilizers on this item? It looks to me as though fertilization would enter into it. Particularly I should like to know whether or not Canada is producing enough nitrates to enable our farmers to maintain the fertility of their soil against the depletion that normally takes place through raising the large crops that we are raising. If we are not producing enough nitrates, then obviously we are running down our soil. Has the minister any information on the point?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have scarcely enough of potash and phosphates. We could make use of more. We have a surplus of nitrogen. We are producing all the nitrogen necessary for the production of fertilizers. As regards other ingredients, apart from phosphates and potash, we have no difficulty in obtaining a supply sufficient to take care of our needs.


John Horne Blackmore: Has the minister's department any information as to the general use of these fertilizers? For instance, are the people in Alberta restoring to the soil, in a general way, enough nutrients to prevent a wasting away of the fertility of the soil? Has the minister collected that information, or is that turned over to the provinces?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have here the tonnage of distribution, but I do not know that that answers the question asked. We carry on experimental work at all our experimental farms in connection with the effect of the use of fertilizers. Last year for example I travelled all the way from Ottawa to Fairbanks, Alaska, by motorcar, and I stopped off at most of the illustration stations throughout Alberta, up to British Columbia and right on up into the Yukon. I found that at every one of those illustration stations they were carrying on experiments in connection with the utilization of fertilizers.
One thing they told me at every place I stopped was that their experiments indicated that the best fertilizer is barnyard manure, and that all these other things that are talked about, and for which people are paying big prices, were not as useful as barnyard manure-or, at least, if you did not have barnyard manure, other things did not produce as good results.
Other fertilizers are well advertised by the people who sell them. I think there may

be some reason why we do not make as much use of barnyard manure as we did at one time. But that is what our experimental farms and illustration stations are doing-they are determining these things. When I have driven along the highways in Ontario and in the maritime provinces I have seen plots on which cages have been placed in order to check carefully the growth of grasses, as a result of the utilization of different kinds of fertilizers.
That practice is carried on continuously and, while some of this work may be done by the provinces, it is a work we are doing through our experimental farm service right across the country.


John Horne Blackmore: I have raised the question for the reason the minister has given. Everyone knows that in the last fifty years we have stopped using horses. As a result, the fertility which is restored to the farm through having horses is lost. Then, we are apparently going out of the production of cattle-that is, if we increase the use of margarine in place of butter.
So far as I can see, all these matters militate against the maintenance of fertility of the land. I cannot think of any other item under which this matter might more properly be discussed. I am alarmed lest we are running our soil down at a far more rapid rate than we can afford. That is why I am asking the minister if some other discoveries have been made in connection with fertilizers, as a result of which we could maintain the fertility of our land, notwithstanding that we are producing fewer livestock as the years go by.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the answer to the point the hon. member has in mind is to be found in a statement I have here, which points out that the use of fertilizer in Canada has more than doubled since 1940, having increased from 300,000 tons in that year to 765,000 tons in 1950. It is estimated, according to this statement, that the demand for fertilizer in 1951 may be still higher than it was in 1950. That figure is two and a half times higher than it was ten years ago.


John Horne Blackmore: I had the matter impressed on my mind particularly in connection with the production of beets in the Lethbridge area. Farms that a few years ago produced 23 or 24 tons to the acre, for some reason or other have fallen away in their potential production. The people find it difficult to know why this is happening, because they are putting a good deal of artificial fertilizer
Supply-Agriculture
on the soil to raise their beets. There must be some definite depreciation in the quality of the soil taking place.
If this is so, then it seems to me a matter of major importance, and all the departments of agriculture across the nation should give the closest attention to it.
I should like to know whether, with all this additional use of fertilizer, we are maintaining the fertility of our soil. I do not suppose the minister has information from which he could answer my question. It is a matter that should be looked into by his department.
Are we adopting measures which will keep fertilizer costs down to the point at which encouragement will be given the average farmer to use it extensively? I am referring particularly to nitrates, potash and phosphates.


James Garfield Gardiner: The claim is made in
Ontario-and we think with some truth- that they are maintaining the fertility of the soil in a major part of that province. That, of course, is a general statement. There may be areas in which it is not being done, and there may be other areas in which it is being built up to the point where it is pretty good soil. I think the same would be true across Canada. I happen to farm in an area where most people think fertilizer is not required at all. Some others are making use of fertilizer. However, most people argue that there is not enough difference in what they produce as a result of using fertilizer to pay them for doing so. The result is that they do not use it. That is in a part of the prairie section where the fertility of the soil is high, and where in some areas that soil is very deep. Even if two or three inches were to blow off the top, it would not do much more than improve the farm. The fertility of the soil is the same in some areas, even if one went down one hundred feet. In those districts one does not talk a great deal about fertilizers.
But we know that where there is erosion, and where there is a top soil of only three or four inches, if that top soil is carried away in any way, whether it be by wind, water or some other means, there is a reduction in the productivity, and ways must be found of putting something back.
On the other hand, if you grow the same crop over and over again without putting anything back, the land will cease to produce that kind of crop to advantage. There are all kinds of ways in which productivity can be kept up; but in most areas the productivity of the soil is maintained at about what it has been on the average over the years.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. Fair:: The fact that more and more
tractors are being used on the farms today, and also that we are raising fewer horses and cattle, accounts for the lack of barnyard manure. Since it is not manufactured, naturally it cannot be put on the land, and for that reason some other method must be adopted to maintain the soil. I know that in my own district we have used quite a lot of fertilizer during the last ten or twelve years. Last fall we had what I consider a very important meeting at the agricultural school at Vermilion, attended by the councils of three large municipal districts as well as the service boards of those districts and many dttiers interested in agriculture. We also had the superintendent of the Lethbridge experimental station and the publisher of the Lethbridge Herald, who took a leading part in that meeting. That evening quite a dinner was put on, attended by a couple of hundred farmers, townspeople and others vitally interested in agriculture. Those two gentlemen from Lethbridge gave a very interesting description of soil conservation in their district. I believe that is being followed up this month with another meeting, and many people are hoping something worth while will be done in connection with soil conservation. If we can develop something in our district, of course, it will be circulated to other districts in that area. I feel that the fertility of the soil must be maintained, and that many people who today are mining the soil must get busy and learn to conserve instead. If they do not, I am afraid the future of agriculture will not be very bright. We have to do everything possible to conserve the soil and improve marketing conditions so agriculture may retain its rightful place in our economy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of animals-
26.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $4,346,187.
Mr. Beyerstein:: Will the minister say
what is being done to control and eventually eliminate Bang's disease?


James Garfield Gardiner: The plan being carried on
has not been changed in the last year. The department is promoting the use of calf vaccine as a preventive and of course insisting that a farmer should eliminate any breeding stock that may be afflicted with the disease, since it is to his advantage that it should not continue in the herd. We have not undertaken what has been sometimes suggested here as necessary; that is, having the government make payments for animals destroyed. We have done that in connection with the efforts made to wipe out other kinds of disease, but we have not undertaken

that policy in connection with Bang's disease. We are still following much the same practice that we had a year ago.


Mr. Johnston:: Before this question is dropped I should like to ask the minister what progress has been made in the investigation of the Koch treatment which I believe was brought to the attention of the department by Dr. Amott of London, Ontario. I believe there has been quite a bit of experimentation with the Koch treatment not only in Ottawa under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture but also by the government of Ontario and the governments of some other provinces, particularly British Columbia. A year or two ago there seemed to be a good deal of hope that the Koch treatment might cure Bang's disease. I well recall Dr. Amott visiting the hon. member for Battle River and me in our offices here in Ottawa some years ago, and I wondered if the minister could tell us the result of that investigation. Has this treatment been entirely discarded? Do they think it is no good at all? Is there any hope in it, or just what is the position?


James Garfield Gardiner: The department have
carried on a rather careful investigation, and they are not inclined to promote the idea that it is a cure for Bang's disease. It is a little difficult for anyone to say definitely that this or that does not do any good, of course.


Charles Edward Johnston: What success if any was
encountered in your experiments?


James Garfield Gardiner: Our people do not think
it is a success at all. I have visits from Dr. Arnott occasionally, as others do. He himself is very much convinced; he has convinced others, and perhaps the treatment does some good. As far as the department is concerned, however, we would not promote the idea that it is a cure for Bang's disease.


Mr. Argue:: Along the same line may I ask the minister whether the Koch treatment has not been successful in some instances at least in the treatment of mastitis? I understood that was a field in which the treatment did have some success. I remember getting some literature in my mail box to that effect, and I would appreciate it if the minister would comment on that aspect.


James Garfield Gardiner: I never like to discuss on the floor of the house these ideas individuals have that they can cure this, that or the other, whether it be in humans or in livestock. I am not an expert in matters of that kind, but my officials tell me that the investigations they have made, which have been fairly extensive, do not indicate that

Supp ly-A griculture
any great good has resulted from the use inspected but less being estimated for com-of the Koch system in either mastitis or pensation. Is there some explanation for Bang's disease.	this?


Percy Ellis Wright: What success has been
achieved in the use of penicillin in connection with mastitis?


James Garfield Gardiner: It can be used to very good advantage. I believe the usual advice in connection with the use of penicillin is that it be administered under the direction of someone competent to do that work.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I should like to ask a question concerning a matter which came to my notice just the other day. The county of Huron is an accredited area where they have had two tests, and in the case of some herds three tests. One chap lost quite a few cattle, and as the minister knows the owner is paid for anything that goes to the tank. The other day this chap informed me that he had four cattle condemned and slaughtered, and . that a quarter from each went to the tank, for which he was not paid. Is there any reason why he should not have been paid for those quarters that went to the tank? There was a quarter from each of the four, so in all he lost a whole beef. It is a new one to me and I should like the minister to make some comment on it.


James Garfield Gardiner: The general practice in
connection with the wiping out of t.b. in areas that are covered is to pay $40 on the grade animal that is destroyed. Of course that $40 is paid, as I understand it, irrespective of whether or not any portion of the animal is destroyed. If the quarter was found to go into the tank and therefore there was no considerable payment for it, the $40 would be paid and the other three-quarters could be sold. That would be the entire amount that the farmer would receive. I think that is the general practice.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Apparently this gentleman was not paid anything on these four quarters that went to the tank.


James Garfield Gardiner: It was four different
animals, a quarter each?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: He would be paid for three-quarters, and as to the one-quarter there would be a very small payment if he got anything for it.


Percy Ellis Wright: I notice under this item there is an increase of $572,000 in the administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act while in the following item, compensation for animals, there is a decrease of $711,000. That looks as if there are more herds being


James Garfield Gardiner: The explanation for that
of course is that the heavy loss is in the first test, as everyone understands, and a very considerable part of the area that is being dealt with has had its first test. We are on the second or third test and the cost is not so great.


Percy Ellis Wright: Are there not new areas
being tested?


James Garfield Gardiner: There will be, but when it is necessary to cover a second time areas that have had one inspection in order to keep the plan in operation, then the cost would be less than if we were working all through the season in new areas.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: I should like to ask the minister if all of Nova Scotia is now in the accredited area. I understood that the mainland was and that tests were being made on Cape Breton Island. I should like to know from the minister if the entire province is now a t.b. accredited area.


James Garfield Gardiner: My understanding is that the maritime provinces as a whole, and certainly Nova Scotia, were an accredited anti-t.b. area when I came to the department almost sixteen years ago. There may be some question as to whether in certain areas the tests have been kept right up to date, tout my understanding is that it is still looked upon as an area that has been accredited throughout. If any herds are not fully accredited because of the fact that there have not been inspections recently, that is simply a matter of the task not being overtaken. I do not think the position of the province has changed at all in that regard.


Percy Chapman Black: I think there
were sections on the mainland where tests were delayed, for instance, Lunenburg county. There was a lot of opposition to it in that area, but there was a subsequent request that it be included in the accredited area. I was not sure whether that testing had been completed, and also on Cape Breton Island.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand it has been cleaned up.


Frank Exton Lennard: Where are the quarantine stations located on the Atlantic seaboard?


James Garfield Gardiner: Saint John, Levis and
Halifax.


Frank Exton Lennard: I have heard of some
complaints about the one at Levis in particular. It has been said that the sheds are inadequate, the treatment is not all that is

Supply-Agriculture
to be desired, and the feeding arrangements also are not all that are to be desired. I was wondering if that had been drawn to the attention of the officials, and if any improvements are being instituted at these stations.


James Garfield Gardiner: We are constructing new
buildings at Levis. We started them last year, and they are about halfway through the construction now. I think it is generally agreed that the buildings have not been in too good shape.


Frank Exton Lennard: Is there any regulation preventing the owner of animals in quarantine from going on the premises?


James Garfield Gardiner: The law does not permit the individual to go on the premises unless he has a special permit.


Frank Exton Lennard: From whom does he get the permit?


James Garfield Gardiner: From the health of animals division of this department.


Frank Exton Lennard: Are they usually given?


James Garfield Gardiner: In most cases they are given when they are applied for but there may be exceptions.


Frank Exton Lennard: When would there be exceptions?


James Garfield Gardiner: Where in the opinion of the officials applied to there is some danger of carrying disease by persons.


Frank Exton Lennard: That would be the only reason?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is the reason that is given, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
27.	Compensation for animals slaughtered, $929,434.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: In Summerside you have a station for studying the diseases of furbearing animals. Have you any report with respect to the success they have had in the study of distemper in fur-bearing animals and the cure thereof?


James Garfield Gardiner: A survey has been made there just recently, but we have not the report on it yet. We are not in a position to be able to say just what the result is, but there has been a survey. We will have the information shortly, and I will see that the hon. member is supplied with it as soon as we get it.


Owen Lewis Jones: Would the minister make a statement as to how much was paid last year to the poultry producers of British Columbia by way of compensation for the loss of poultry afflicted with Newcastle
fMr. Lennard.]
disease? I should also like to know how much is in the estimates for the current year for the same purpose.


James Garfield Gardiner: The compensation in Ontario was $16,434.52, and premises quarantined on suspicion numbered 69. The amount paid in Manitoba was $566.75, and premises quarantined on suspicion numbered 7. In Alberta the amount paid was $5,792.10 and premises quarantined on suspicion numbered 15. In British Columbia the amount paid was $842,846.63, and the premises quarantined on suspicion, 75. This makes a total expenditure of $865,640, and premises quarantined on suspicion, 166.


Owen Lewis Jones: What is the estimate for British Columbia for this year?


James Garfield Gardiner: The estimate for this year is $250,000, and the figure for British Columbia last year was $842,846.


Owen Lewis Jones: Is the reduction due to the fact you consider the disease has now been arrested, or are the poultry disappearing?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, we consider that the disease has been arrested. I do not believe we can say that it has been wiped out, but we think it has been arrested.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
29.	Plant products-seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant of $40,000 to Canadian Seed Growers Association, $1,282,268.
John James Smith: I presume that rust would come under this item 29. In western Canada we have experienced a new rust which I believe is known as B-15. It may not be a new rust, but it is new to us. I believe that possibly in a good many places where frost was blamed for cutting down the yield in Saskatchewan it was not solely due to frost. In my constituency there was grain that was not cut. In the location of my farm, not too far from the Manitoba border, we had no frost and the grain graded between 3 and 4. I know some work has been done in this connection, but could the minister bring us up to date on the plans for handling this B-15?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, the lab for the development of methods for combating rust is, as my friend knows, in Winnipeg. We are carrying on there as actively as at any time, and all the facts that are to foe known with regard to the development of a new type of rust which attacks the wheat, which up until very recently was considered to be rust-resistant, are known by that lab. They are still conducting experimental work to see

if these types of wheat will prove not to be rust-resistant, and to develop types which will take their place. Activities are being carried on there very intensely, and I think it could be said that everything that can be done is being done.


John James Smith: One further question concerning this rust. I have heard or read that this rust originated in Texas on a barberry bush. I do not know if the minister knows whether or not that is correct; possibly he does. At one time it was said that they could not spray this barberry bush to get rid of the rust, but surely that is not the case. Someone would have done it by this time. Does the minister know if there is anything in that story?


James Garfield Gardiner: The barberry bush has
alway been a source of rust, a sort of parent plant from which the rust comes. It is a part of the system of combating rust to do away with the barberry plant wherever that can be done. I do not believe it is generally considered that this new rust comes particularly from the barberry bush, although I am not fully informed with regard to that. My officials tell me they do not think it does. It is a new form that is not fully understood at the moment, but every effort is being made to understand it.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Will the minister explain the
$40,000 grant to the Canadian Seed Growers Association?


James Garfield Gardiner: The grant in 1950-51 was $40,000. The same grant is required for 1951-52. The Canadian Seed Growers Association originated in 1904, and was a national organization controlled by competent seed growers for use in the production of registered seed recognized by the Seeds Act as seed of a legal grade. The association is responsible for (a) registration of crops of the quantity and quality required to provide the basis seed necessary to maintain a satisfactory standard of crops for commercial use; (b) maintenance of accurate records of crop pedigrees and issuing of crop certificates; (c) directing continuous multiplication of foundation and elite stock seed of old and new varieties to serve as the basis for the production of registered crops; (d) the acceptance of varieties for registration; (e) initiating, approving and maintaining standards of purity; (f) preparation and distribution of all distinctions of varieties acceptable for registration; (g) preparation and distribution of information to grower members; (h) holding of itinerant annual meetings to provide an opportunity to group members to meet and discuss association problems.
Supply-Agriculture
Much of the seed improvement in Canadian agriculture in the past forty years can be attributed to the activities of the Canadian Seed Growers Association. The total membership-is my friend interested in this?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: No, that is not necessary. I just wondered what it was used for.


Percy Chapman Black: I notice that fertilizers are specifically mentioned in this item. There has been some discussion with respect to fertilizers this evening, but this appears to be the only item in which they are particularly mentioned. I have had some representations from the farmers in my part of Nova Scotia concerning the increased cost of fertilizer. Fertilizer is very important to agricultural production in our part of Canada. We have not the advantage of having the one hundred feet of fertile soil which the minister mentioned there was in his part of Saskatchewan.
Perhaps I had better read what has been placed before me. I was waited upon by the president of the Cumberland county farmers association, Mr. Rae McCunn, the vice-president, Mr. Walton Allan, and the secretary-treasurer, Mr. Carl Embree. After they had had a meeting with the agriculturists in that county, this is what they had to say with respect to fertilizer:
Fertilizer prices are advancing and we believe that one of the main causes of this increase is due to the increase in the price of nitrate of ammonia. After the last war the government sold plants manufacturing this product to private business firms and the prices immediately jumped from $74 to $91 per ton. Through pressure brought about by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture prices dropped back to $74.50 per ton. During the past two or three years prices have steadily climbed until at present this product is costing $92 per ton.
We feel that such price increases are not justified and are due to the fertilizer cartel.
I should like the minister to make a statement with respect to the cost of fertilizer, especially in eastern Canada, with special reference to the representation, that I have just placed before him.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I understand the statement that was read, it is to the effect that nitrates were made at low cost during the war, that they were made in plants that were then owned and controlled by the government, that those plants were later disposed of and that the costs have been higher.


Percy Chapman Black: The prices were reduced after the plants were taken over by private interests, and they have since been increased to almost $100 a ton.


James Garfield Gardiner: All I can say about the matter at the moment is that it is true that at
3656

Supply-Agriculture
one time the plants were owned, operated and controlled by the government. As a matter of fact, the one at Calgary was built by the government during the wartime as part of our effort to produce munitions. By some people it was hoped that, when the war was over, the plant would be taken over by the government. This government, however, decided that we did not desire to go into the business of making fertilizer; and the main objective in taking the plant over by anyone would have been at the time to make fertilizer. On behalf of the Department of Agriculture I asked to have the disposal of the plant held up for, I think, six months, in order that I might have an opportunity to interview any parties that might be interested in operating the plant. I took the matter up with the western governments and I took it up with the wheat pools in the west whioh had ways and means of financing projects of that kind. I was finally told by all of them that they were not interested, and so the plants were sold under an option, held by Trail smelters; and it is operated by them, so far as I know, at the present time.
The other plant, which I think was down near Hamilton, was operated for a time by the government as part of our effort in connection with munitions and supplies. It also has since been disposed of to private interests. I do not know whether or not it is correct to say that those private interests are a cartel. I have not made any examination into that aspect of the matter. I do not know whether or not I would be competent to give an opinion. In any event, they are now operating and the product is being sold. I presume the prices given are correct prices in connection with the sale of the product.


Percy Chapman Black: May I ask the minister if -his department, with regard to the prices of fertilizer generally and nitrate of ammonia in particular, is safeguarding the interests of the provinces, especially those of the maritime provinces. As I said earlier, this is an important cost to producers of farm products in eastern Canada. I would presume that the department would be taking some steps to safeguard the farmers and to see that they are protected against exorbitant charges for fertilizer.


James Garfield Gardiner: We call attention to complaints that are made with regard to prices. Any complaints that come in are taken up by us with the parties that are responsible for those prices. They generally have the same explanation that we hear from day to day, namely, that costs are up and it is necessary for them to put the price of their product up. That applies pretty well across

the board, no matter what product you are dealing with. I must say that there is not any means that I know of whereby I could control the price, and say that they must charge a certain price for fertilizer.


Percy Chapman Black: I would think the minister or his department should investigate this charge with regard to cartels and safeguard agriculturists against excessive charges being made for a commodity as important as fertilizer. May I ask the minister if any subsidy is being paid by the federal government with respect to the manufacture or distribution of fertilizer, and if there has been any such subsidy paid in former years?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is a subsidy on the distribution of lime. The vote is:	Agricultural lime assistance, $435,000 this year; that is the same as last year-freight and production assistance to the provinces on agricultural lime for soil amendment purposes. That is the only assistance we are giving in connection with what is generally considered as fertilizer.


Percy Chapman Black: Can the minister make some statement with respect to cartels putting up the price of fertilizer?


James Garfield Gardiner: If it is a cartel or a combine, which is the more common term, I am afraid there is a piece of legislation which makes it necessary for anyone who believes that to put it into operation and have them prosecuted. But apart from that, I do not know-


Percy Chapman Black: The minister
should protect the farmers.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know that there is any way that I can declare, unless the courts do so, that anyone is operating a combine or a cartel. I may have that opinion and others may have it. But before saying that they are or before saying that we are going to take any action in connection with them because they are, I think the ordinary procedure would have to be taken against them.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: A few days ago I brought a matter to the attention of the department and of the minister, and asked why the department was opposed to liquid fertilizers. I think the intention of the minister was to give some further information with regard to the matter. Judging by the sale of liquid fertilizers to the farmers, they are becoming more popular, owing to the price being somewhat lower and also probably because it is more easily handled. Last winter, in a farm broadcast from Ottawa, opposition was expressed which materially affected the distribution of liquid fertilizers. I really think

it was a mistake on the part of the department to broadcast against liquid fertilizers; or rather, that is the opinion that has been expressed to me by a great many farmers. The broadcast I refer to was on March 5, 1951.


James Garfield Gardiner: We do not take a definite
position in connection with the fertilizer. To anyone who applies here for information we give whatever information is available from the experiments which we carry on. Our experiments indicate that the treatment of the grain itself does not bring the benefits which are claimed. The utilization of fertilizer of that kind is I suppose found in the experience of some to be beneficial, and we would not of course say that they should not use it or advise them not to use it. We simply give whatever information we have, based upon the experiments we carry on with it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The reason I brought the
question up is that I thought it was not in the best interest of all to have this broadcast go out from the Department of Agriculture, condemning liquid fertilizer. The broadcast I referred to was on March 5 last.	.


James Garfield Gardiner: So far as my officials know, we did not put out any statement on it.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The broadcast was from the
farm forum.


James Garfield Gardiner: We can hardly be responsible for what the farm forum broadcasts. They may have gone and asked for some information on it, and then made a broadcast accordingly. The first broadcast that I heard of, or the first that I knew about it, was the announcement we made in the house here by giving publicity to the answer to the question which was asked. I do not know whether there is any reason to complain about it or not, but it was brought up in that way.


Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to say a word
about this question. I do not know whether it was on the farm broadcast or not, but in my opinion if the statement was made on a farm broadcast that liquid fertilizers are uneconomical and the use of them was not in the best interests of farmers, that statement was absolutely correct. Certainly any data on experiments that I have seen show that liquid fertilizers are uneconomical. No doubt there is a great deal of profit in promoting the sale of these fertilizers, and consequently one would expect a good deal of high-pressure advertising. I might say that on farm broadcasts by the Saskatchewan 80709-233i
Supply-Agriculture
department of agriculture they do not hesitate to say and to repeat that a farmer is ill advised to spend his money on liquid fertilizers when he could spend it to far greater advantage on the solid and well-known fertilizer.
I believe that part of the job of the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa and part of the job of the experimental farm is to find out whether or not different materials when used are to the advantage of the farmer. I can say that if such a report appeared on a farm radio forum or farm broadcast it should be commended. I will ask the minister whether he thinks I am right when I say that the use of liquid fertilizer, as far as any experimental data are concerned, has shown that they are uneconomical.


Percy Ellis Wright: Must the various companies
in Canada selling chemicals for weed sprays and insecticides and for various other uses that are made of those sprays register their product with the Department of Agriculture before selling it? If so, are inspections carried on to see that the product is maintained and the standard under which it is registered kept up? Has any experimental work been done by the dominion experimental farms to test the product to see whether it has reached the standard that would be necessary or the standards that are claimed for it?


James Garfield Gardiner: We do have the sprays
registered, and we have an inspection staff which checks in order to see that the qualities are maintained. These inspection staffs work out of district offices which are established, and they make thorough inspections.
In answer to the other question which was asked in regard to liquid fertilizers, I would say that our departmental officials do advise that the utilization of liquid fertilizers by applying them to the grain does not give any particular benefit. That is the opinion of the officials, and I assume it is a correct opinion. But there are some other ways in which it may be used that may give some benefits. In so far as that particular use is concerned, they do say that their experiments show there is no great advantage to it.


A. Earl Catherwood: Does the minister think
that owing to the necessity for an increase in agricultural production it might be advisable to consider the possibility of the same sort of assistance as is being given under the lime assistance plan at the present time so far as fertilizer is concerned.


James Garfield Gardiner: During the war we did give some assistance, mostly on transportation of fertilizer from one place to another. One of

Supply-Agriculture
the reasons for it at that time was the difficulty of distribution. We discontinued doing that because we did not think we were getting the results for the expenditure of the money that warranted our continuing it. We have continued the subsidy on lime, but we have not gone any further than that. Our reason for it was that we did not think we were getting sufficient return from the expenditure of the amount of money that was required to warrant our continuing with it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
30.	Grants to fairs and exhibitions, under such 'terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council and subject to allocation by the treasury board, $614,400.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: How many class A fairs and how many class B fairs has the minister? Have any been added to the group?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is one class A fair in Prince Edward Island at Charlottetown. Is it just the numbers in each province that are desired or the places of them? Class of fair: A's, Prince Edward Island, one; Quebec, four; Ontario, seven; Manitoba, one; Saskatchewan, two; Alberta, two; British Columbia, one; making a total of eighteen. Class B fairs: Nova Scotia, four; Quebec, twelve; Ontario, twenty-one; Manitoba, three; Saskatchewan, eight; Alberta, five; British Columbia, two; total fifty-five.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Are there* any class A or class B fairs in New Brunswick?


James Garfield Gardiner: We pay on a somewhat different basis in New Brunswick. The New Brunswick people did not desire to go on operating on the same basis as we operate in the other provinces. There were special situations existing there.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Is it commensurate?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think so. It works out at just about the same as they would get if they classified their fairs 'as "A" and "B." But they have a different classification, and we have accepted it as being similar to what is being followed in other provinces. The show mentioned here is the New Brunswick cattle show at Frederiction.


Percy Chapman Black: I am pleased that the cattle show at Fredericton has a grant of $10,000. I believe it was increased a year or two ago. It seems to me the subsidy being paid the maritime winter fair at Amherst is entirely inadequate, having regard to present-day costs. The amount is only $5,500. It is probably by far the most important agricultural fair in all the maritime provinces, and the oldest fair of

its kind in Canada. It has done more than any other organization to improve the quality of livestock.
Some of the directors have spoken to me with regard to their costs, and the difficulties they are having in operating this fair which serves Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and in an even greater measure serves Prince Edward Island. Each of those provinces draws prizes in almost equal amounts from the maritime winter fair. It seems to me it should be given a much larger grant than is provided in the estimates. People who are interested in agriculture attend this show in large numbers. They come from the three maritime provinces, and they look forward to the minister's making a special visit. However, in recent years they have been disappointed when he has not been able to be present. I presume he has other functions to perform that he considers are more important than his presence at the maritime winter fair. Could not arrangements be made to give a larger grant to that fair than is provided in the estimates?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I notice that the provincial cattle show at Fredericton is in receipt of a grant of $10,000. I have no complaint against that; they deserve it. But there is no special grant for Prince Edward Island, because it is in with the other maritime provinces, and is included with the maritime winter fair at Amherst. As the hon. member for Cumberland has said, that winter fair has done a great deal to improve the livestock of this country. From time to time this matter has been discussed by breeders. They have appealed to the hon. member for Cumberland and to me to see if they could get something additional for the maritime winter fair. I hope the minister will give consideration to this suggestion in his supplementary estimates.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to express my appreciation of the maritime winter fair at Amherst. I know our people in New Brunswick look forward to it every year, and it is known as one of the big events in the agricultural world.
The hon. member for Queens seemed to question the $10,000 granted to the provincial cattle show at Fredericton. As I understood from the minister a moment ago, New Brunswick is in a position different from the other provinces. The only grant we receive is this $10,000, whereas the other provinces are receiving grants for "A" and "B" fairs and provincial summer fairs. I think it will be seen that Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have received grants for fairs in addition to those at

Amherst and Charlottetown, or wherever they may be. On the other hand we receive a grant only for the one at Fredericton in compensation for not being allowed grants for other fairs.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right. We were
paying on one "A" fair and three "B" fairs to a total amount of $11,000 in New Brunswick. We made an arrangement with them whereby we would pay $10,000 on one fair.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We lost money.


James Garfield Gardiner: We saved a thousand
dollars on the transaction. But it suited them better in New Brunswick than any other arrangement, and we agreed to the suggestion. We saved around $1,000 in doing it.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And, to complete the picture, would you tell us what they received, in the aggregate?


James Garfield Gardiner: I gave the figures a moment ago. For Bridgewater fair in Nova Scotia the amount is $2,500; Oxford fair, $2,187.75; Sydney, $901.12; Truro, $2,500; Amherst winter fair, $5,500. If they are added up it is about $3,000 more.


Percy Chapman Black: Why is Oxford fair, which is considered the best county fair in the maritime provinces, if not in the whole of Canada, receiving only $2,187.75, while these other fairs which are not as large or not as important receive $2,500? This would not appear to me to be a large grant for Oxford fair.


James Garfield Gardiner: It is on the basis of improvements. We pay 50 per cent of improvements.


Percy Chapman Black: Does that mean improvements to quarters?


James Garfield Gardiner: Improvements and repairs
to buildings, including the putting up of new buildings and the repairing of buildings already in existence.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Which fair in New Brunswick had the department been previously subsidizing, or paying a grant to, as a 1-A fair?


James Garfield Gardiner: Saint John.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: As the minister probably
realizes, Saint John fair was interrupted by the second world war. Plans are under way to have it resume some time in the future. I am wondering if the present allocation to the provincial exhibition at Fredericton will in any way prejudice the chances of the Saint John fair receiving a further grant in future as a class 1-A fair.


James Garfield Gardiner: The arrangement at present is that we accept the approval of the province.
Supply-Agriculture
I presume that if the province withdraws its approval we might talk about something else.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marketing service-
33. Agricultural economics, $510,433.
Percy Ellis Wright: I have in my hand a copy of the Country Guide for May, 1951, in which
I find this statement:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture discloses that the cost of bringing a pound of beef from the farm to the retail counter is now nearly four times as high as it was in 1945, the margin having increased-from 6 to 22-5 cents per pound in five years . . .
Secretary Brannan released some figures which may help city people to understand what is happening to price relationships. Milk doubles in price within a few hours after it leaves the farm. For the com inside a 19-cent can the farmer gets 21 cents. His share of a can of 16-cent tomatoes is:
3 cents. Onions which cost the consumer 6 cents a pound left the farm at a cent a pound. The same thing applies to clothing. The cotton in a shirt costing from $3.50 to $4 brought the farmer 30' cents. The wheat in a 15-eent loaf has enriched the man who produced it by 2| cents.
Armed with this information American farm leaders are making some very caustic comments. Statistical analyses of this nature are not available in Canada . . .
That is the point I want to bring to the minister's attention.
. . . but The Guide would recommend it as a good exercise for the large numbers of technical people, capable of doing this kind of work, now on the payroll at Ottawa.
I imagine that type of work would be done under this vote, and I am wondering how much has been done or is being done at present.


James Garfield Gardiner: As I understand what has been stated by the hon. member, it is to the effect that in the United States they have worked out certain relationships between costs and prices.


Percy Ellis Wright: The spread between what the producer gets and what the consumer pays, and th.e relationship of that spread as it changes from year to year. This indicates that in the United States is has increased, and apparently we have no comparable statistics in Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, I do not know that we have no statistics. Any statistics we have would be prepared by the bureau of statistics. We utilize their statistics in our prices support board in working out relationships between costs and prices. The price of milk is referred to in detail in the article just read. The control of milk prices is with the' provinces and always has been, with the exception of a short period during the war.. While the war was on we did take control of milk prices, but that was the first product to be decontrolled and turned back to the

Supply-Agriculture
provinces at the end of the war. The reason for that was that the provinces had boards to handle it.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is not the point of the question at all. The point is, does the department keep any records or try to obtain any ^records as to the spread between what the producer gets for his product and what the *consumer pays for it from year to year, so the department would know the trend, -whether or not there is a greater spread from ?year to year? That is the kind of economics *on which the department would be well ^advised to have some information, and I think such information would be valuable.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are some eight or nine products on which we are carrying out investigations, but I repeat that the facts on which we base our investigations are obtained from the bureau of statistics. Those facts are utilized in surveys being made by our economics branch. We have figures in that connection.


Percy Ellis Wright: Apparently in the United States they consider these figures important. For a number of years now they have kept track of the relationship between what the producer receives and what the consumer pays. That has always been a matter of controversy in this country, and I am sure such information would be valuable.


James Garfield Gardiner: A report on the nine commodities I mentioned has been published and distributed, along the line of what has been suggested. Some people may think it is not as well done as in the United States; some may think it is better done. I am not prepared to say one way or the other. During the war period we did make very careful studies of those questions in connection with price controls. It may be that in the United States their studies are a little more careful at the present time because they have price controls there, and these things are important in that connection.


Percy Ellis Wright: I think this information is important not only when you are enforcing price control, but to indicate to the people who is getting the gravy, to use the language *of this article, through the increased prices which consumers are having to pay for many farm products. I am sure farm organizations would find such information very useful in arguing the case for the farmer. Certainly 1 would compliment the department on having made a start last year on this type of work, and I think it should be extended to more products than are under investigation at the present time.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I notice in the details at page 100 that 38 economists are employed under this heading, and I am wondering what functions they perform. I am wondering that because in Newfoundland we have a marketing problem that probably does not exist in any other part of Canada. On the west coast we have three of the principal fertile agricultural areas, with one on the east coast. On the west coast we have the Codroy valley, Stephenville and the Humber area; and when the minister visits Newfoundland I hope he will find it convenient to visit those districts. There he will see land equal to any in Ontario or Quebec, where the possibility of increasing production is very great.
I know from experience that the producers are handicapped by the lack of storage facilities, and also by the lack of refrigerator cars to bring their potatoes to St. John's during the winter season. At present when the potatoes are brought during the winter they are frozen in transit, and of course deteriorate in value. Then on the east coast near St. John's we have another area where agriculture is practised intensively. It is an extraordinary thing, however, that produce from the St. John's area will be sent to Grand Falls, Comer Brook or the lumber camps, while produce from the west coast will be brought all the way to St. John's. I believe the economists could usefully investigate the conditions under which agriculture is being practised in Newfoundland. I have spoken on this subject each time the estimates have been before the committee, and on other occasions when I have had the opportunity.
I want to say that agriculture has been neglected in Newfoundland and is still being neglected. It is capable of improving the conditions of Newfoundlanders more than anything else. The minister, the government and members of this house are familiar with the difficulties under which the fishing industry has been Labouring for these past two years. In fact the fishing industry has been, labouring for a good many years, but agriculture is capable of redressing some of the balance and giving a better balanced economy to Newfoundland.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: We are not dealing with
fishing.


William Joseph Browne: I am dealing with the question of agricultural economics. That is the heading here, and if what I am saying is not agricultural economics I should like to know what it is.
I am only making a comparison. I noticed the parliamentary assistant smiling when I referred to fishing, but after all when we are

talking about economics we can afford to make some comparisons. Agriculture was, as I pointed out before, practised to a greater extent thirty or forty years ago than it is today. There were more farms around the city of St. John's, which has a population of 60,000 and is therefore a big market, forty years ago than there are today. We are bringing into Newfoundland from the other provinces far greater quantities of agricultural produce than are necessary.
The provincial government is not in a position to embark upon a policy because it has not got the direction. It has not got the men, the economists, the trained agriculturists. I hope the minister will see that during his visit, and I trust he will come back with the idea of helping Newfoundland. I do not believe there is a minister in the government who can give more assistance to the improvement of the economy of Newfoundland than the Minister of Agriculture. I have urged him now for two years to visit Newfoundland, and I can say there is no member in this house more pleased than I am to know that he is going there. If he will apply his perspicacity and experience to a study of the conditions in Newfoundland I believe it will be for the benefit of Newfoundlanders generally.


James Garfield Gardiner: We had three or four
economists in Newfoundland, as no doubt my friend knows, during the greater part of last summer, and we are still carrying on investigations there. We did delay some of the work in connection with production until the census is completed this year because much of the information required on which to base studies will be obtained through the census. The economists have been down there carrying on investigations with regard to the food supplies of the island, the sources from which they come and the extent to which they can be produced on the island. All of that has a bearing of course upon agriculture in the province. While I am down there for three or four days at the beginning of next week I shall look into the matter as far as it is possible to do so in that limited period of time. I am quite sure that I shall benefit from the journey there, and I hope the island will benefit by it as well.


Mr. Harkness:: I do not know whether or
not the question I am going to ask has been brought up before. I am sorry to say that I was not here today, but I was at Chalk River looking over that institution and as a result was not able to be here this afternoon. However, I want to bring up a matter under this item. Looking at the details on page
Supply-Agriculture
100, there is an item for printing of departmental reports and other publications. Referring to the summary of standard objects of expenditure and special categories, which was furnished with the estimates, I see that under this item the Department of Agriculture has an expenditure for this year of $485,175, which is the largest amount by a considerable extent for any department with the exception of national defence.
I know of course that the Department of Agriculture publishes a considerable number of pamphlets of various sorts, and of those that have come into my hands the majority are useful publications. I should like the minister to tell the committee what the item of $485,175 covers, and without going into too much detail what publications are involved, in addition of course to the general report of the Department of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not know whether I misunderstand the statement that has been made. I understood that the hon. member for Calgary East was discussing the item of printing of departmental reports and other publications on page 100. That item amounts to $21,550. What is the explanation of the $485,000? I did not get the connection.


Douglas Scott Harkness: This same item, printing of departmental reports and other publications, occurs under a very large number of other items in the Department of Agriculture. The total shown in this summary to which I have referred is $485,175.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of course there are items similar to this one, and they have been covered in all of the votes that we have passed. I assume the total will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of the figure that has been mentioned. I have no reason for saying that is not the correct figure. It will be a considerable amount, and that is natural, as the hon. member has already suggested, in the Department of Agriculture. We have between 700,000 and 800,000 farmers in Canada, and it is our duty to distribute the knowledge we obtain through our experimental farms and otherwise which is going to be helpful to as many of those farmers as are interested. Therefore our printing bill will be considerably higher than that of most other departments. The hon. member has said it is higher than any other department except national defence. That is probably correct, and these are very good reasons why it is correct. There is the matter of distribution to farmers throughout a country as large as ours, and the fact that they are all intimately concerned with what is going on at our experimental farms and elsewhere

Supply-Agriculture
makes it necessary for our publications to be in very considerable number and to be put out in considerable quantity.


Douglas Scott Harkness: If this information has already been put on the record I do not want it to be put on, again, but if it has not I should like to have the minister bring forward, so that it can be put on Hansard as an appendix, the details of the amount of $485,175.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the item carry?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I undertake to see that it is put on Hansard, if not on today's then on Monday's, will it be all right to carry the item?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think we should carry the item. I should like to ask some questions after the information has been put on Hansard.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, on
Monday we shall proceed with the budget bills Nos. 294, 295, and 296, the Excise Tax Act, the Customs Tariff and the Income Tax Act.	.


Howard Charles Green: In that order?


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, I would leave that to the Minister of Finance. Then, we shall continue with Bill No. 322, an act respecting the Canada post office. Were we fortunate enough to complete that we would take up the resolution in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the basis of a bill to go before the committee. If we make progress, we shall take up Bills Nos. 355 and 344.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Administration service-
1.	Departmental administration, $336,942.
2.	Information service, $347,412.
3.	Advisory committee on agricultural services, $5,000.
4.	Contributions to commonwealth bureaux, $56,821.
Science service-science service administration-
5.	Operation and maintenance, $276,159.
6.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $713,545.
Animal and poultry pathology-
7.	Operation and maintenance, $398,585.
8.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $37,115.
9.	Bacteriology and dairy research, $155,457.
Botany and plant pathology-
10.	Operation and maintenance, $1,345,552.
11.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $178,600.
Agricultural chemistry-
12.	Operation and maintenance, $503,410.
13.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $58,800.
Agricultural entomology-
14.	Operation and maintenance, $1,663,234.
15.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $182,979.
Forest entomology-
16.	Operation and maintenance, $1,153,447.
17.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $232,830.
Plant protection-
18.	Operation and maintenance, $724,119.
19.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $54,400.
Experimental farms service-
20.	Experimental farms service administration, $162,185.
Central experimental farm-
21.	Operation and maintenance, $1,686,674.
22.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $249,319.
Branch farms and stations and illustration stations-
23.	Operation and maintenance, $4,682,078.
24.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $1,195,625.
Production service-
25.	Production service administration, $58,154. Health of animals-
26.	Administration of Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act, $4,346,187.
27.	Compensation for animals slaughtered, $929,434.
28.	Livestock and poultry, $1,443,208.
Plant products-
29.	Seeds, feeds, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides control, including grant of $40,000 to Canadian Seed Growers' Association, $1,282,268.
30.	Grants to fairs and exhibitions, under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council and subject to allocation by the treasury board, $614,400.
31.	Grants to agricultural organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $52,500.
Marketing service-
32.	Marketing service administration, $174,270.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 4, 1951